Great job. Some aditional infos from Slovenian prspective: There were two main reasons why the young state of slovenian, croats and serbs decided to merge with the kingdom of serbia firstly it was considreded as a frendly option because serbs are south slaves as well however more important and the main reason was eminent danger of neighbor countries to crush new country from all directions namely Italians all ready advenced in the direction of Ljubljana, because a new countrie had no real military to stop that, Hungarian had simmilar ideas, Austrians tryed to concquer the land as well but they mostly failed because slovenian officier Rudolf Maister (former austrohungarian Major) succesfuly defended part of the north Slovenian theritory with a bunch of volunteers packed together in a hurry. A lot of Slovenian and Croatian politician became quite a bitter only 1 week after merge, because for the Serbian king this operation wasn't a merge of two countries, but rather a concquer of the new land for Serbian kingdom. Serbia also didnt send a major military power to retake land from Italians alhought Italian advance was stoped as was agreed, but they went in to another direction like imposed new alphabet namely cyrillic alphabet which was for the population of slovenia and vast majoriti of croatia peoples completely unreadable, also the slovenain and croatain politicians got only cosmetic roles in the new country, both nations got a feeling of a treason, which later expanded in more and more chlashes. After 1920/21 Serbian king did some minor changes in favor of Slovenian and Croatian nations however the bad taste in the mouth stayed up to WWII The slovenian land which was given to the Italy by the west allies after WWI was also a place were the first peoples was killed by the rising Fascist regime (1928) many years before jews become a main target BTW idea of the south slavs united coutry was first emerged in austro hungarian part of the future yugoslavia(Zagreb/Ljubljana) not in Serbia
I do these videos on location and I'm afraid I won't travel to South Africa soon so no, not in this format. Perhaps in another one! Thanks for your reply.
My grandpa (Serb from Croatia, born in 1914), once told me: 'I remember when I saw my father first time, when he came from war. I was SEVEN!' I thought that can't be right, WW1 was over in 1918.. But he was correct: my grand-grandfather served in Habsburg Army (1914-18), then in State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (1918), which merged with Serbian Army, and did not demobilize until crisis with Italy was resolved (1921). So, for him WWI lasted 7 years! :(
Stjepan Radić was against unification with Serbia before before it is decided whether the new state will be centralized or federal (he strongly opposed centralized model). His most famous quote is ''do not rush like geese in the fog'' said to the delegation that went to Belgrade to negotiate unification with Serbia before the organization of the future state was decided. P. S. Stefan is standing meters away from the spot where I drank beer the same day this video was published.
They had to in a way since Italy wanted to carve a huge portion of that state so solution was to "change sides" willingly. That state had no army and until yesterday have been part of an enemy empire and Italy joined other side to expand to Dalmatian coast and some more parts. None would object if they did just that unless they joined in new south Slav state led by Serbia.
taj radic je bio veliki Srbofob, drugo njegovo misljenje nije relevantno, posto u tom trenutku i hiljadu godina ranije, nikakvi hrvati i slovenci nisu postojali. a kamo li njihove drzave. Sve je to bila zapadna ujdurma da se Srbija razbije na sto vise delova i unisti jednom za sva vremena. A to su postigli kupovinom aleksandra karadjordjevica i nikole pasica. Ista stvar se i danas ponavlja
@@HistoryHustle And it's also around 100 m from the place were the SHS state was proclaimed. And also directly above the air raid shelter (tunnel) from WW2. And i also work about 150 m form there :)))
The State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs may have been short lived. But I know of one state that is eternal: my state of Depression. Kidding, mostly, but seriously your videos are always quite good and brief states are very interesting.
once again, a good video, May I ask something, can you maybe make a video about the 4th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Brigade Nederland and about where they fought, what equipment they used and if if they actually won several battles? I really enjoy your videos and you are still my main history YT channel I go to when I am bored
Interestingly, too, the theoretician behind both Yugoslav workers’ inclusive co-operatives, open borders, and the reduction of the party to being ( merely ) ‘The League of Communists ‘,was all due to a quiet Slovene who long outlasted far grittier and unabashedly careerist hanketers after Tito’s primacy, Djlilas and Rankovic.,… Edward Kardelj.
Almost correct, I'd say: Rankovic - correct, he was careerist and authoritarian Djilas - together with Kardelj, he was the one of the creators of 'workers co-operative' model, and he wanted to go even further to democratize Socialist Yugoslavia and introduce multi-party system. For which Tito removed and later imprisoned him. So technically from these four he ended up being the most progressive / liberal-socialist.
Except for the fact that it never existed and it was all theatre for the west, in reality it was state-owned, communist party controled economy. Workers forums were just asked to rise hands to approve party decision, option of not rising hand did not exist. I can not believe that there are people who believe in such fairytales about communist so-called yugoslavia.
As I believe you’ve noted, quite recently, Stefan, alike to the Polish - Lithuanian Commonwealth, in the late 18th century, Slovenia was essentially liquidated, and gobbled up , wholly alive, by a voracious Germany, Hungary, Italy, and the bizarrely- titled , oxymoronic, Croatian NDH .
@Kafa kafica After 1948 the term Slovene was used, before we were Carynthians, Carniolians, Styrians... Before this term Slovene was mostly used for Slavic people in general.
@Kafa kafica There were several Slavic principalities in which ancestors of Slovenes lived, the main one (and the oldest Slavic state) was Carantania. Without Carantania Austria would not exist. Name change came about because of historic reason, the Carantanian statehood was simply too short. Ancestors of Slovenes were divided in diferent states and administrations, their leadership was wholey replaced by forengiers and they fell under heavy asimilation. The name Slovenci (Slovenes/Slovenians) was used by Primož Trubar in 16. century, it cames from the exprestion for the Slavs. Slovenia didn't exist in the 18. century, but Slovenes did. The oldest surviving Slovenian text is from 10th century (the original could be from the 9th), Brižinski spomeniki are also the oldest Slavic text written in latin form. Slovenes had some national recognition in Holy German empire and Austro-Hungary, their national rights were hovever seriously lacking (or being denied). Serbians were also sometimes called serves or slaves, that doesn't mean that this was their proper name.
Excuse me, who killed Franz Ferdinand (and started WW1)? You also mention Croatian representative Stjepan Radić, who shot him (and some other Croats) in the state assembly (practically unpunished)? ~ ° ~ Congratulations, hot topic!
Gavrilo Princip was "educated" by the Black Hand, I'm not saying he was guided by Chetnik (Greater Serbia) ideas, maybe even the opposite (youth = madness), but "teachers" certainly are!
Tito's Yugoslavia after 1945 was globally the best solution for all peoples and nationalities from those areas. The kingdom with the Serbian king after SHS, which is being talked about, was certainly not that (not even as a solution after ww2)!
A-ha, yes, of course, only Serbs fought in the WW2 (although that is not the topic), good luck to everyone else (others do not matter) who left bones so that we would be better today...
Great job. Some additional infos:There were two main reasons why the young state of slovenian, croats and serbs decided to merge with the kingdom of serbia firstly it was considreded as a frendly option because serbs are south slaves as well however more important and the main reason was eminent danger of neighbor countries to crush new country from all directions namely Italians all ready advenced in the direction of Ljubljana, new countrie had no real military to stop that, Hungarian had simmilar ideas, Austrians tryed to concquer the land as well but they mostly failed because slovenian officier Rudolf Maister succesfuly defended part of the north Slovenian theritory. A lot of Slovenian and Croatian politician became quite a bitter only 2 week after merge, because for the Serbian king this wasn't a merge of two countries, but rather a concquer of the new land for Serbian kingdom. Serbia didnt send a major military power to retake land from Italians alhought Italian advance was stoped as was agreed, but they went in to another direction and imposed new alphabet namely cyrillic alphabet which was for the population of slovenia and vast majoriti of croatia peoples completely unreadable, also the slovenain and croatain politicians got only cosmetic roles in the new country, both nations got a feeling of a treason, which later expanded in more and more chlashes. After 1920 Serbian king did some minor changes in favor of Slovenian and Croatian nations however the bad taste in the mouth stayed up to WWII BTW idea of the south slavs united coutry was first emerge in austro hungarian part of future yugoslavia(Zagreb/Ljubljana) not in Serbia
This state was in effect proto-Croatia/Slovenia, but it was not going to be allowed to remain following their relatively high position in the the hierarchy of the defeated Habsburgs, with Serbia being backed up by the French in its reconquest of Belgrade, it’s setting up of clients in Montenegro and the Banat, annexation of those areas (including the making the deposition of the Montenegrin monarchy official) and Syrmia, and finally the merger with Zagreb and the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs to form the Yugoslav kingdom. This was part of France’s anti-Communist, anti-Habsburg “cordon sanitaire”, with the State of SCS not passing the anti-Habsburg test.
You should do a video on Neutral Moresnet, its pretty close to the Netherlands so you could do it on location! It's only relatively short-lived, but unlike other short-lived states it was actually recognized. They also used Esperanto I believe. Maybe the free cities of Menton and Roquebrune-Cap-Martin too if you can dig anything up on them, I think they were independent 1848-1849.
Thank you for the detailed information. I see this short-lived state as the start of Yugoslavia, which was not a catastrophe of biblical proportions, (as presented by some nationalists of different nations composing it) but the beginning of the unification of the Southern Slavs. And despite everything, it was not all bad.
The allies already drew up a map with territorial boundaries for croats and slovenes! They were registered enemies. . They were ment to have extremely small territory around zagreb that was to be divided amongst austria and hungary. . Slovenia was going to be like some kine of Tyrol territory and Dalmatia was ment to go to Italy! That was the border. . The rest would all go to Yugoslavia! Problem was, there was Serbs living in those zones. . So King Aleksander made a decision, many Serbs were begging him not to include the Croats no matter the cost! But he had vision, he wanted to unify all slavs and eliminate serb,croat,slovene, as national terms for Yugoslavs. . He wanted the people to see it like that keeping all religions and customs just not those names
@@HistoryHustle, It is today and always will be independent into the future as a nation, but they will loose territory sooner or later due to unfinished business. . They occupy lands that do not belong to them historically, just like our albanian neighbours in the south. Do I want a war? Ofcourse not, but geopolitics always works like this in history! Somebody does not want us to be friends, to forgive each other on issues etc. Yet we are pretty much the same people, just different dialects and religion!
Seems like some Balkan peoples would rather live in small poor countries and be ruled by their own, rather than be part of a bigger and wealthier country while ruled from Belgrade.
@Kafa kafica It was partially religious question (Orthodox and Catholic Christians (also Protestants), Muslims). Then there is national layer- Serbs, Croats, Muslims, North Macedonians, Montenegrins and Slovenes, big minorities Albanians, Hungarians, Roma...) There were several languages spoken, two main scripts... This mix was in one state. What was the average Yugoslavian? Czechoslovakia has only one religion, but was disintegrated in 2 states on the national line Czechia and Slovakia. And in contrary to Yugoslavia, they did that peacefully.
@Kafa kafica For Slovene is the main factor the language, not the religion. North Macedonians speak also different language. You can't say only religion.
@Kafa kafica 2 days ago I met a man from Šip and he told me he was (North) Macedonian. I know a Bosnian who lives next to my parents house and he calls himself a Muslim. I mat many people from Montenegro who felt as Montenegrin I mat many Bosnians who declared them self Muslims. I think we have to respect them. I mat also many Croats and Serbians in my life. Everyone needs to be recognized and to be respected.
The Kingdom of the Serbs united with the SHS and was the only state in Europe that had recognized the SHS, whereas Austria, Hungary, and Italy worked towards partitioning it. Yugoslavia was formed as a union of political equals.
@@numenoreaneternity6682 Majority of Croats wanted unification with the Serbs, but not if it meant being dominated and Serbianised by them in a heavily centralized state.
I knew nothing of this history before...still trying to make sense of the Serbian/Croatian conflict the US became involved in? it sounded like pure genocidal causes stemming from WWII with religious undertones...but this is adding some more clarity to this conflict...or not LOL:)
@@HistoryHustle Thanks...I did watch the four wars video and later about Tito. I'm beginning to understand and should have known you had already covered most of my interests. The comment sections are also very enlightening with the obvious nationalism which will remain embedded in perpetuity it seems. That is perhaps not such a bad thing...diversity isn't necessarily a strength...everywhere it is found...or imposed.
Stefan..two years later, I recalled that you did this presentation. I am living in Dubrovnik and this week started a course to be a tour guide and basically across the last three days we have had a crash course in 10.000 years of Croatian history. I shall however revisit this presentation as it shall definitely help me with perspective. Thank you. Love all your presentations
@@atomov Kind of, just check the censuses before 1991. Also, you need to live 50+ years among Croats, Serbs etc in different parts of the Balkans to verify the results, which I did.
@Kafa kafica Serbs are Serbs, Croats are Croats, Slovenes are Slovenes... You can't make 'open eyes' like you have written to became all Serbs by Serbian domination and by Serbian king. People and nations should decide what they want and make them the nation. Too many differences, languages, religions... King didn't recognize Bosnian Muslims, Montenegrins, North Macedonians... It was bad management of the Serbian king. He had all the power with his government. He didn't fix the national and other questions within the kingdom. He was unsuccessful. And I wonder why the Kingdom Yugoslavia collapsed very quickly.
@Kafa kafica You have mentioned in 1931 census there were only 900.000 Slovenes in country with 17 million people that time. Where did you get these numbers? I found fore Slovenes 1 million, for Yugoslavia 12 million. Please sources
A little of topic but history related , i was doing some reading in the history of the first world war and came across the treaty of verdun of 843 .( i was looking up the battle of verdun) The treaty that divided the carolingian empire in to west Franconian empire , Lotheringia and east Franconian empires. Where western Franconia would become the kingdom of France and eastern Franconia the other the kingdom of germany . And its amazing that 1073 years later both nations chose to slug it out at Verdun. as a masterplan to win the war on the western front . Its an interesting history to say the least France germany and the benelux + alsace-lorain in the middle of those conflicts for the past 1200 years.
What do you think about General Hotsendorf being in on the assignation of the Archduke and his wife. The Archduke had prevented the empire from going to the war with Serbia about 14 times. The General was the leader of the war party. He also directed the driver to go down the road where the Black Hand had an assassin' waiting. He made sure to kill the Archduke and Duchess bit Hotsendorf miraculously wasn't shot? It seems too convenient that the man who thwarted his plan of military glory was both dead and a cause of the war he wanted, two birds with one stone!
@@HistoryHustle As far as I know Hötzendorf was not present the day of the Attack, that was General Potiorek, an other complete idiot, though. Speculations exist, that on the one hand the "Black Hand" - yes Kafa, they did organize it - set it, for some political reason, up purposely to fail - the organisation was rather unprofessional - but the local Austrians did let it go on. Ferdinand was not liked by the " war party", that much is true, the rest makes for funny "what if"s
Hötzendorf was not in Sarajevo at all! In the car was Oskar Potiorek, the military governor of Bosnia and Herzegovina, later he "mastermind" behind the two unsuccesful AU campaigns vs Serbia. He was an utterly stupid man, and a warmonger himself, but much much lower position than Hötzendorf. Hötzendorf was put in his position by Franz Ferdinand but FF soon saw through Hötzendorf idiocy and did all to take him out of position. There is thus space enough for conspiracy theories as Hötzendorf would love to have FF removed, on many reasons. Still, the AU officials were truly incompetent, and if they (Hötzendorf et al) had actually planned to have FF assassinated, they more likely would have failed and their plan would have been compromised after that. For exactly this reason I'm not inclined to believe that, rather than an assassination organized by Apis Dimitrijević (competent but crazy) through proxy Mlada Bosna, as these guys also hated FF since he was, in effect, a peacemaker while the Black Hand organisation was definitely hateful of anything Austrian, especially Austrian peace.
Hello....and all the best, from a city I live in Allso...all the best to Utracht, a city you come from and I realy like to visite, here and there/nicer and much more relaxed old center, including wather channels, then Amsterdam for me Prity short and acurate story Thank you...once more 🙂👍🍀 Wish you have good time, visiting Cr🌞atia
@@HistoryHustle Nice...thank you. Ofcourse that I know for part of history when politics here ...was wrong/Ustase, Jasenovac camp, NDH, Pavelic, 1941-1945/ In the same time Tito/croat/... and many croats/in partisans with other ex Yu nationes/ are fightening that....and nacifashist By my opinione, we all should know for the bad things happened...not to repeat tragedies......killings...destructione. So...yust continue on a wey ...you do allready That is actualy, ....popularisatione of a history. There is no bad nationes....only the liders, rullers,laws, ......washed brains. Have good time🙂👍🍀
Hey it would be awesome if you could do a video on the the german perspective on the defeat of stalingrad like the one about the defeat of the battle of moscow. Great stuff BTW
Yugoslavia = land of South Slavs Albanians are not South Slavs, they were considered ethnic minority in YU. Annexing Albania would significantly change ethnic (& religious) composition of country, and nobody (including Serbs) would have a majority. So, Pasic (Serbian, later Yugoslav prime minister) rather wanted to keep control over Albania, without annexing them. They gradually lost that influence to Italy in 1920/30s.. Pasic also had personal stake in this: he owned large land properties on Kosovo, that were confiscated from Albanians in 1912 war, which would become an issue if Albanians had more political power in Yugoslavia.
Then was to many crossed fingers on a pockets.....to much untold ideas&reasons to make Kingdom SHS&YU. Partialy, you are right...but, serbian politics&ideas was to create country/ even Great Serbia/in which all serbs will live We all here....still feal it. Hope for much better and relaxed future.🙂👍🍀
@Kafa kafica So...imagine future from that point. Serbia get Vojvodina...where was more hungarians, croats and romanians....then serbs. In Bosnia..could not be more then fifty/fifty Sandjak, Macedonia, Kosovo..... Crna gora... Takva bi se Srbija grcala u krvi neprestanih pobuna ovih naroda. Parlament bi bio nemoguc....ujedinjene bi manjine bile po zastupljenosti blizu broja srpskih poslanika. Pokusajte zamisliti takvu zemlju?!? Genocidom bi bilo nerjesivo. Vidi Kosovo danas/a to je samo Kosovo....i tamo je oko 10% srba, samo/ Nitko ne moze imati sve...za dugo i pod demokratskim zakonima.....nema sanse. Tumacite povijesne cinjenice na ekstremno ogranicen nacin.
@@HistoryHustle well it was. Serbian colonialism took place in many places in their famous "agriculture reforms" which ended with taking land from bosniaks,albanians,croats,etc. and resettling the area with serbian families
@@HistoryHustle Sorry, but ... Why Croats (they are some "bad guys", did they start wars)? What do you think, what do members of other nationalities think about it (ok, Croats are perhaps the "loudest" because they remember 91-95, which evokes bad memories)?
Ideal for who? Serbs were better off without it and the lands of Slavonia, BiH, and Dalmatia could have become part of Serbia the way it should have been. This would have prevented all the problems down the track.
@@stevie6621 I am from Dalmatia . The ancient cradle of Catholic Croatia. You ottoman orthodox serb can only dream of my Dalmatia and of Croatian regions like Slavoniaor Bosnia and Croatia that were parts of Croatia since the foundation of the first Kimgdom of Croatia in 925 AD. By that time servia didn’t even exist..you were just a Bulgarian province. Though you tried several times to steal Croatian lands like Dalmatia and Slavonia…last time 1991. but you know perfectly well how it ended for you ottoman turk serbs. Right?
@@HistoryHustle ideal since it summa up all Croatian lands. Starting from the foundation of the first medieval Kingdom of Croatia founded in 925 AD. And ideal since no Ottoman orthodox turks (aka „Serbs“) were part of it.
Can you tell me the reason you didn't mention the Bulgarians as an ethnic minority? Considering the fact that around that time the Bulgarians constituted the majority of the population of Macedonia and caused quite a few problems for Yugoslavia (one prime example is the assassination of Alexander I of Yugoslavia in 1934), just deleting them from history doesn't seem fair.
@@HistoryHustle You don't need to believe me, just look at the censuses in Macedonia throughout the years for a start. I don't know what sources you used but one thing is for certain - they weren't historically accurate. And you probably used Serbian sources. I suggest whenever you use Balkan sources, take a look and compare them to western sources to at least see if they match or something is not right. Because most, if not all, western sources mention the presence of Bulgarians in Macedonia.
All that not was good for serbs.we still today say yugoslavia was wrong idea....ww1 and ww2 we win.but politic destroy all. Tito was croat and dont like serbs that for we have war 91.so sad.
5:17 That‘s the point. The three MAJOR ethnicities were SERBS, CROATS AND SLOVENES. Macedonians and Montenegrins weren‘t recognized each as ethnicities but a part of the Serb ethnic corpus, and the Bosnian Muslims were only a religious group that was not intentionally brought up to separate the Serbs and Croats from their religion, hence the Serbs are today viewed mostly as Orthodox people and Bosniaks and Croats - Muslims and Catholics. Infact, the three new ethnicities which were created in SFR Yugoslavia were nothing but a Bolshevik propagandist plan of federalizing Yugoslavia and underestimating the Serbian dominance. Montenegrins declared themselves as Serbs while a group of people who sought friendship with Italy and a restoration of the Kingdom of Montenegro didn‘t. The Italian occupation of Montenegro only allowed them to finish their goals but risk it all under the then-rising Partisan rule which granted them the shape of a Republic with its own main ethnicity ”Montenegrins”... Bulgaromans only seceded in establishing Bulgarian rule in Macedonia after occupation but it didn‘t last for much longer. Macedonians and Muslims also separately got their own Republics and for that the new ethnicities were created.
@@HistoryHustle No problem... I just find it very unfair that many people purposefully revise history in order to fit in their political goals and match them, so it would be a lot more important if others started to realize that many things aren‘t taken into consideration which is why people clash together because of their mistaken thoughts and opinions. Like the Treaty of Trianon, not only ethnicities mattered. Hungary had too much influence in the region so that had to be stopped. Centuries of ”occupation” and assimilation, and then they forget who they where and how they became what they are in Europe...
To be fair the king of Serbia did allow some local autonomy to the croats in 1929. However the ending of parliamentary government and the funding of the ustache by Mussolini. The murder of the king in France in 1934 led to an even greater centralisation of power in Serbia. The ludicrous British backed coup in 1941 to not side with the axis. Led to the German Italian and Bulgarian invasion and occupation. Although the ustache state murdered between 300000 to one million Serbs Bosnians and Jews. 1.7 million Yugoslavs died in the second world war and Tito defeated the Italians Germans and Chetniks to create a unified state. After his death and the end of communism. A civil war in Yugoslavia lasted for 4 years and the ethnic cleansing that the nkvd did to the rest of eastern Europe was brought to these lands.
@@HistoryHustle one thing I will beg you, do not share serbian propaganda, if you red a books which were written by objective historians, for example, Yale professor Ivo Banac, professor at Princeton University Jozo Tomljanović....we, Croats do not need one more immoral person, who wants to spread hatred against us, my nation. So called Independent State of Croatia was no better, no worse than the other parts of occupied Europe.....
@Kafa kafica we see, especially jewish historians, sociologist named in the Jeruzalem Post how serbian propaganda doing her unbelieveble acts against us Croats, to make to others to believe they have a reason for massive agression and destroying Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Srebrenica as the cruelest mass crime after second world war, what UN declares to world what the Serbs done.....the Serbs was, are and will be subject of agression in small peninsula called the Balkans.....
Thanks for the video. I really cannot understand why the Croats and Slovenes, despite their western outlooks, would after WW1 rather live under Serbian domination in the Kingdom of SCS. Resistance against Italy was a factor I believe, but however such flawed nationhood would spell troubles in the following decades. The early 30s assassination of the king was only the first major negative outcome.
@Kafa kafica According to conduct of population survey in Austria-Hungary in Slovenian lands, the 66% of Slovenes were peasants, 33 of theme were others. 94% of people finished schools. I know that in Kranj, where I was born, the industry started in the 19th century. The same was the case in other part of todays Slovenia. Where did you got this information that almost all Slovenes until 1918 were common peasants. Please source.
Kranj was 5000 people and had factories. Slovenia had much more evenly spread the industry around countryside in regard of Serbia. But you have been here and you know... And I see you have a lot of sources.
@Kafa kafica I have it from the census 1910 it said 66,6% against 33%. Božo Repe, FE, Slovenci in prva svetovna vojna. I am not telling the fairy tales.
Hmm... Nice video. At the end some of the last sentences sting... "Trumbić signed up for a federal model and Pašić signed up to serve Serbian interests"... For whose interests did Trumbić serve??? Further more, the thing is that 1/3 of Croatias population was Serbian and 1/2 of Bosnias population was Serbian so it comes quite natural that Serbian representatives wanted more unitarianism on the other hand its kinda silly that anyone was afraid that "Croatia would not exist" since Croatia never even existed before WW1 and if it didn't join, it surely wouldn't have.
@Kafa kafica Even if it is true...it can not be a positione from the most of people wich lived in Dalmatia. It will be hard to finde in any old dalmatian city with harbour/on the coast line ore islands/ any serbian ortodox church and chirilic letters carved in stones. Allso, Croatia as a Dutcy and kingdom...were established before Serbia. We all know the idea and ideology of a great Serbia, all others then serbs know it prity well....from a first hand. Allso, national countries develope trough 19th century. Under Dusan arround 13/14 th century...were croats, greeks, bulgars, albanians,.....It was not that only serbs live inside those frontiers, even more, number of serbian populatione was smaller the all others togethers.Hope, you understand those words. Before was more like possetione of some nobelty, kings, families.
@Kafa kafica Maybe you heared for king Tomislav....and bettle in Bosnia 926. against Bulgarian imperia. Then....croats actualy safe serbs....not to become Bulgaria......more precise , bulgarian province
@@daz7122 Ma....ajme, jada od zadrte mito anije i zatvaranja ociju pred cinjenicama A...tek tumacenja Nacisti su se vodili "povijesnim pravom" i "zivotnim prostorom" Cini se da su u velikom problemu da odluce tko su njima "zidovi"....jesu li to BOSNJACI, ALBANCI, HRVATI,BUGARI..... Kako stvari stoje...pronasli su ih u najslabijem narodu po brojnosti...Crnogorcima......trenutno. Ta iskljuciva nacisovinisticka mitomanska tvrdoglavost......bojim se da nece proci tek tako. Ali....eto, tako je...kako je Sigurno im nece uspjeti ikoga uspavati. Moguce je da ce se sami urusiti....jer si nabacuju strahoviti teret.....normalni ljudi to nece moci nositi u nedogled. Ah.... A tek Nikopolje...i ukupno vazaljenje turcima...kroz stoljeca Pa seobe....pa koristenje beneficija/samo da se ne radi i privredjuje/... po vojnoj krajini Rastrce se na sve strane kada se pojavi pjetao u kokosinjcu. Kada se stvari smire...i osjete priliku...eto ti jada za sve u blizini. Onda...kroz sve Juge....ma, umjestu da budu primjer za okupljanje juznih slavena.....bugari im preopaki da udju u Yu......albanaca previse.....za isto....i ostali im "samo " hrvati.....ah Probudili se bosnjaci.......dotuzilo albancima.......crnogorci fasuju/za sada/.... Slovenci...dovoljno pametni da iskoriste svoje pozicije. Malo sam pretjerao u piskaranju....takav dan....takvi mulci i bedaci...
@@HistoryHustle Просто и једноставно, никакви хрвати и словенци до прве половине 19 века нису постојали, осим у германским и ватиканским плановима да се разбије Србски народ на што више ентитета. Само глупост и наивност тадашње Србске елите да признају све што им запад потури, омогућила је тој скупини конвертита да се називају "народом".
dr Stevan Tomović - Istorija Hrvata - velika vatikanska laž Vatikan - leglo falsifikata - prvi deo Porfirogenitovo delo - vatikanski falsifikat o poreklu Hrvata i Srba. Velika Hrvatska Poput Jevreja, i Srbi su nezaobilazna žrtva manipulacija Rima i njegove falsifikovane istorije. Delo „O upravljanju carstvom“ Konstantina Porfirogenita, kao glavnog izvora o poreklu i dolasku Slovena na Balkan, isto je falsifikovano, poput gore opisanih dokumenata, kao i brojnih drugih koji ovde nisu spomenuti. Većina istoričara bi se složila da kada ne bi postojalo ovo Porfirogenitovo delo, onda o dolasku i poreklu Srba i Hrvata, i poreklu njihovih imena, ne bismo znali ništa, i u njihovoj najranijoj istoriji ostala bi rupa. Baš ta činjenica podstakla je Vatikan da to delo falsifikuje. Baš to saznanje, da će lažiranjem glavnog istorijskog izvora o najdaljoj prošlosti Srba i Hrvata moći da izmeni budućnost tog naroda, i da će istim moći da manipuliše, bio je glavni motiv Vatikanu da nastavi sa svojim uobičajenim prljavim poslom prikrivanja istine. Zar bi i mogla da propusti ovako lak plen? Da bismo videli istinsko poreklo Hrvata i imena Hrvata, kao i značaj takvog saznanja, neophodno je prvo proveriti postojeća tumačenja i teorije, a koja su uglavnom bazirana na delu vizantijskog cara Porfirogenita. I zaista, dovoljno je pogledati stavove zvanične nauke o poreklu Hrvata i imena „Hrvati”, pa videti da su isti zasnovani isključivo na ovome Porfirogenitovom delu kao glavnom izvoru. Ipak, koliko su njihovi stavovi ispravni, pokazaćemo sad na osnovu samog teksta tog dela, koji je zapravo još jedan u nizu vatikanskih falsifikata. A kao što ćemo kasnije prikazati, poreklo i cela istorija Hrvata je falsifikovana - isto kao i u slučaju istorije Srba i mnogih drugih naroda po svetu. Da pomenuto delo zaista predstavlja falsifikat o poreklu Hrvata pokazaće nam primeri iz samog teksta. Prvi od njih govori o tome kako je navodno nastalo ime Hrvata. Ovako je tamo zapisano: ‘Hrvat’ na slovenskom jeziku znači ‘onaj koji poseduje veliku teritoriju’. U Porfirogenitovom delu piše da su Hrvati tako nazvani zato što su u svome posedu navodno držali mnoge zemlje i veliku teritoriju. Zanimljivo je da u istom delu pisac čak i Franačku, koja je držala polovinu Evrope, naziva „velika Franačka“ (iako to nije sam naziv države), pa onda čudi da je i jedno od slovenskih plemena nazivano „Veliki Hrvati“. Očito je da naziv „Hrvat”, ne ni na jednom slovenskom jeziku, već ni na jednom jeziku na svetu ne znači „onaj koji drži veliku teritoriju”. A zašto bi onda jedan vizantijski car napisao tako nešto, pogotovo ako se uzme u obzir da je car Porfirogenit bio veoma obrazovan vladar? Zvanično objašnjenje glasi da je Porfirogenit, navodno, zapisao takvo poreklo imena Hrvata, pošto je ta reč veoma slična grčkoj reči hora, što bi značilo „zemlja“. Međutim, ni u tom slučaju nije nimalo jasno zašto onda hrvatsko ime ne znači „zemljani“, „oni koji drže zemlju“, a ne „oni koji drže veliku teritoriju“. No, svu tu gungulu laži razotkriva sledeće pitanje: Kako to da su Hrvati, koji su se doselili sa Srbima na Balkan, kako kaže Porfirogenitovo delo, dobili ime po grčkoj reči hora, a da su Srbi dobili svoje ime po latinskoj reči servus? I Hrvati i Srbi su se zajedno doselili na Balkan, ali je vizantijski vladar Srbe nazvao po latinskoj reči za „roba“, a Hrvate po grčkoj reči za „zemlju“; pa da li se u Vizantiji govorilo latinskim ili grčkim jezikom? Još je veći problem u tome što u Porfirogenitovom delu piše da naziv „Hrvat“ ima takvo značenje na slovenskom jeziku, a ne na grčkom, tako da ta njihova priča o vezi grčke reči hora i imena „Hrvat“ ne pije vodu. Sasvim je jasno da je to neko umetnuo u Porfirogenitovo delo u kasnijem dobu. Takođe, „Porfirogenitovo“ izvođenje srpskog imena od latinske reči servi u značenju „robovi“ nemoguće je iz još jednog razloga, a to je da su i u Srednjoj Evropi - isto kao na Balkanu - živeli Srbi pod tim imenom. Srednjoevropski Srbi se kasnije spominju u franačkim analima, i to su Srbi koji nisu nikad bili pod vlašću Vizantije, niti su dolazili na Balkan, pa nisu ni mogli da dobiju takvo ime po latinskoj reči za „robove“ od vizantijskog cara. O ovome je govorio i najznaniji hrvatski istorik, Ferdo Šišić. On je smatrao da je poreklo imena Hrvata i Srba, koje navodi Porfirogenit, nenaučno i netačno. On slično kaže da ako su Srbi zaista dobili naziv po latinskoj reči za robove, kako onda objasniti tvrdnju cara Porfirogenita da su Srbi potekli od nekrštenih Srba iz tzv. „Bele Srbije“ u Srednjoj Evropi, koja se dakle nazivala Srbija iako se nalazila van Balkana i domašaja Vizantije? Znači, zvala se Bela Srbija pre no što su Srbi tobož uopšte postali robovi vizantijskog cara, te on nije ni mogao da im da ime Servi, u značenju „robovi“, čak i ako ne uzmemo u obzir sve druge izvore iz Ranog srednjeg veka i antičkih vremena koji nam govore o srpskom imenu. Ovo nije toliko bitno kao dodatni dokaz da je etimologija srpskog imena od reči servi netačna, već je bitno iz razloga što pokazuje koliko su falsifikatori bili neoprezni i aljkavi u svom naivnom i sa velikom mržnjom motivisanom krivotvorenju istorije Hrvata i Srba. U vezi sa tim, istoričar Ivan Lučić, koji se često smatra „ocem hrvatske istoriografije“, Porfirogenitove je tvrdnje o Hrvatima i Srbima nazivao „trabunjanje Latina“. Dok konačan dokaz dolazi iz samog Porfirogenitovog dela: [stextbox id=“info“]Čak i da ne znamo ništa o njemu kao falsifikatu, dakle, čak i da ga smatramo za verodostojno delo, samo je jedan podatak dovoljan da sruši celu tu iluzornu vavilonsku kulu od falsifikovanih karata. Naime, u vreme cara Iraklija, a u čije su vreme Srbi navodno dobili ime po latinskoj reči za „robove“ (lat. servi), uopšte se nije govorilo latinskim, već grčkim jezikom! Štaviše, u Vizantiji se govorilo grčkim od tog doba, pa sve do nestanka iste u 15. veku; latinski nije bio službeni jezik na vizantijskom dvoru. Kako su onda mogli Srbi dobiti ime po latinskoj reči za robove, pošto su navodno bili „robovi romejskog cara“? Na grčkom se „rob“ ne kaže ni servus, niti nešto slično tome, već doulos. To je samo dodatni dokaz da su vatikanski falsifikatori, koji su pisali i govorili latinskim jezikom, samo ubacili tu neistinu o poreklu imena „Srbi“, pretvorivši grčko doulos u latinsko servus. Onaj koji je u Porfirogenitovom delu zapisao da su Srbi „robovi“, taj isti je u mnogo kasnijem dobu govorio da su Srbi, i uopšte Sloveni, „ropska rasa“ kojom treba da se vlada. Da nije toliko providno i naivno odrađeno, možda bi i moglo da im se poveruje. I kao što je Rim Srbe hteo da ponizi nazvavši ih svojim robovima, tako je na sličan način, u tom spisu, hteo Hrvate da prikaže kao slavan narod i najznačajniji politički faktor na Balkanu, a u cilju da ih odvoji od Srba. Zato tamo i piše da naziv „Hrvat“ znači „onaj koji drži veliku teritoriju“. S tim u vezi, čak i da se u Vizantiji tada nije govorilo grčkim, već latinskim jezikom, opet se nailazi na kontradiktornost, jer je ime Hrvata kod Porfirogenita izvedeno od grčke reči „hora“, što znači „zemlja“. Zato u istom delu i piše kako je hrvatsko ime navodno nastalo od „neke slovenske reči“. Na koji god način pokušamo da opravdamo delo Porfirogenita, uvek nailazimo na neko protivrečje. U vezi s tim u istom tekstu se spominje i termin „Velike Hrvatske“, iako nikad ni na jednoj jedinoj karti Evrope nije zabeleženo postojanje države sa tim imenom. Štaviše, ovaj naziv je najviše bio popularan za vreme osnivanja ustaške države NDH, kad se pod tim podrazumevala Hrvatska koja je trebalo da obuhvata i Sloveniju i Bosnu i Hercegovinu i delove današnje Srbije. Međutim, kao što nikada u istoriji nije postojala Velika Srbija, tako isto nije postojala Velika Hrvatska, a naročito ne u Srednjem veku. Uostalom, niko od istoričara i ne zna gde se tačno u Srednjoj Evropi Velika Hrvatska nalazila. Često se ova tzv. „Velika Hrvatska“ poistovećuje i sa srednjoevropskom Belom Hrvatskom iz Porfirogenitovog dela, no ipak, ni ona nikada nije postojala. Nekome će to možda izgledati čudno, ali to tako biva kada se krene u razotkrivanje falsifikata, prosto je nemoguće ne naići na stvari koje je teže progutati iz jednog zalogaja. Ipak, svu ovu gungulu oko termina Velika, Bela Hrvatska rešili su već sami hrvatski istoričari. Evo šta kaže "hrvatski" lingvista i istorik Vatroslav Jagić: „Bela i Velika nekrštena Hrvatska je izmišljena zemlja“. Potpuno isto se kaže i za tzv. nekrštenu (pagansku) Belu Srbiju, koja se isto navodi u Porfirogenitovom delu, kao sused Bele Hrvatske:ona nije postojala. Savremeni "hrvatski" istoričar Ivan Mužić potpuno razjašnjava svu ovu problematičnu situaciju, kad kaže kako „Oznaka megale u DAI nema značenje prostorne veličine. To nije Velika Hrvatska nego stara, prva Hrvatska iz koje su (se) Hrvati iselili. M. Kuzmić je tačno protumačio pojmove Bijela i Velika Hrvatska u DAI. On je naveo 24 primjera, a od toga su 22 primjera iz djela raznih pisaca koji potvrđuju da megale znači stara, starija, prva“. I eto objašnjenja: nije to ni Velika, ni Bela, niti bilo koja druga obojena Hrvatska, to je „Stara Hrvatska“, što će reći, prvobitno mesto sa kojeg su Hrvati došli na Balkan
In 1918 in Zagreb formed State Slovenes, Croats and Serbs but none was recognize this state. In December, 1 1918. in Belgrade formed - Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. From 1929 change name in Yugoslavia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia
Learn about other SHORT-LIVED STATES:
ruclips.net/p/PL_bcNuRxKtpFAruB5bAnlJ5RX9J9rZXF8
The best state is the one who have never seen the light of the day. Ancap greetings from Brazil!
Great job. Some aditional infos from Slovenian prspective:
There were two main reasons why the young state of slovenian, croats and serbs decided to merge with the kingdom of serbia firstly it was considreded as a frendly option because serbs are south slaves as well however more important and the main reason was eminent danger of neighbor countries to crush new country from all directions namely Italians all ready advenced in the direction of Ljubljana, because a new countrie had no real military to stop that, Hungarian had simmilar ideas, Austrians tryed to concquer the land as well but they mostly failed because slovenian officier Rudolf Maister (former austrohungarian Major) succesfuly defended part of the north Slovenian theritory with a bunch of volunteers packed together in a hurry.
A lot of Slovenian and Croatian politician became quite a bitter only 1 week after merge, because for the Serbian king this operation wasn't a merge of two countries, but rather a concquer of the new land for Serbian kingdom.
Serbia also didnt send a major military power to retake land from Italians alhought Italian advance was stoped as was agreed, but they went in to another direction like imposed new alphabet namely cyrillic alphabet which was for the population of slovenia and vast majoriti of croatia peoples completely unreadable, also the slovenain and croatain politicians got only cosmetic roles in the new country, both nations got a feeling of a treason, which later expanded in more and more chlashes. After 1920/21 Serbian king did some minor changes in favor of Slovenian and Croatian nations however the bad taste in the mouth stayed up to WWII
The slovenian land which was given to the Italy by the west allies after WWI was also a place were the first peoples was killed by the rising Fascist regime (1928) many years before jews become a main target
BTW idea of the south slavs united coutry was first emerged in austro hungarian part of the future yugoslavia(Zagreb/Ljubljana) not in Serbia
Stefan! Could we have the south Africa ones like the Orange free state o Transvaal Republic? Loving the show
I do these videos on location and I'm afraid I won't travel to South Africa soon so no, not in this format. Perhaps in another one! Thanks for your reply.
Mate south africa has a few problems at the moment. It takes preperation
@@electricangel4488 as a South American, we say it's just a normal day
My grandpa (Serb from Croatia, born in 1914), once told me:
'I remember when I saw my father first time, when he came from war. I was SEVEN!'
I thought that can't be right, WW1 was over in 1918..
But he was correct: my grand-grandfather served in Habsburg Army (1914-18), then in State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (1918), which merged with Serbian Army, and did not demobilize until crisis with Italy was resolved (1921). So, for him WWI lasted 7 years! :(
That must have made such an impression. Very interesting to read. Thanks for sharing this.
Love your videos History Hustle!
Great! :D
Stjepan Radić was against unification with Serbia before before it is decided whether the new state will be centralized or federal (he strongly opposed centralized model). His most famous quote is ''do not rush like geese in the fog'' said to the delegation that went to Belgrade to negotiate unification with Serbia before the organization of the future state was decided.
P. S. Stefan is standing meters away from the spot where I drank beer the same day this video was published.
Cool spot :)
Stjepan Radić was not against the union...
They had to in a way since Italy wanted to carve a huge portion of that state so solution was to "change sides" willingly. That state had no army and until yesterday have been part of an enemy empire and Italy joined other side to expand to Dalmatian coast and some more parts. None would object if they did just that unless they joined in new south Slav state led by Serbia.
@@goran77ish this is as accurate as any "what if" fairytale.
taj radic je bio veliki Srbofob, drugo njegovo misljenje nije relevantno, posto u tom trenutku i hiljadu godina ranije, nikakvi hrvati i slovenci nisu postojali. a kamo li njihove drzave. Sve je to bila zapadna ujdurma da se Srbija razbije na sto vise delova i unisti jednom za sva vremena. A to su postigli kupovinom aleksandra karadjordjevica i nikole pasica. Ista stvar se i danas ponavlja
The Saarland is one of my favorite short lived states
One day 👍
"Do you know what I find interesting?... Short lived states." Oh my goodness I thought I was the only one.
Great, there is a playlist of other episodes in case you're interested:
ruclips.net/video/VQ6QHle5g40/видео.html
@@HistoryHustle Thanks, but I've already watched all your videos lolz. Keep it up though, we're big fans.
Well hello there:) I see you found one of mine favourite spots in Zagreb:)
Yes, very nice place to shoot. Not much people and great overview.
@@HistoryHustle And it's also around 100 m from the place were the SHS state was proclaimed. And also directly above the air raid shelter (tunnel) from WW2. And i also work about 150 m form there :)))
Excellent nugget of history Stephon 👍 travel safely good man 👊
It was a great trip, thanks for your message!
Best history teacher I wish I had at school back then! Another great one Stefan!
Greets, T.
Many thanks!
Smash 👍👍👍 It's brought with feeling. Pleasure to watch and learn more. Thank you for the content Stefan. Solide.
Many thanks!
The State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs may have been short lived.
But I know of one state that is eternal: my state of Depression.
Kidding, mostly, but seriously your videos are always quite good and brief states are very interesting.
Thanks! :)
once again, a good video,
May I ask something, can you maybe make a video about the 4th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Brigade Nederland
and about where they fought, what equipment they used and if if they actually won several battles?
I really enjoy your videos and you are still my main history YT channel I go to when I am bored
Thanks and about your request, it's already covered in the video about the Dutch Legion:
ruclips.net/video/mRq28YWT6b8/видео.html
Interestingly, too, the theoretician behind both Yugoslav workers’ inclusive co-operatives, open borders, and the reduction of the party to being ( merely ) ‘The League of Communists ‘,was all due to a quiet Slovene who long outlasted far grittier and unabashedly careerist hanketers after Tito’s primacy, Djlilas and Rankovic.,… Edward Kardelj.
Thanks for the additional information.
@@HistoryHustle Oh no, Stefan ! It’s you doing all the very hard work !!!!
@@HistoryHustleNone of can BEGIN to thank you enough !
Almost correct, I'd say:
Rankovic - correct, he was careerist and authoritarian
Djilas - together with Kardelj, he was the one of the creators of 'workers co-operative' model, and he wanted to go even further to democratize Socialist Yugoslavia and introduce multi-party system. For which Tito removed and later imprisoned him. So technically from these four he ended up being the most progressive / liberal-socialist.
Except for the fact that it never existed and it was all theatre for the west, in reality it was state-owned, communist party controled economy. Workers forums were just asked to rise hands to approve party decision, option of not rising hand did not exist. I can not believe that there are people who believe in such fairytales about communist so-called yugoslavia.
Interesting! I have a friend who is Serbian. His family was displaced during the Balkan wars of the 90’s. Such a horrible time!
Indeed a terrible time that was.
As I believe you’ve noted, quite recently, Stefan, alike to the Polish - Lithuanian Commonwealth, in the late 18th century, Slovenia was essentially liquidated, and gobbled up , wholly alive, by a voracious Germany, Hungary, Italy, and the bizarrely- titled , oxymoronic, Croatian NDH .
More on that later! I'll cover the 1941 Axis invasion very soon.
@@HistoryHustle Oh ! Marvellous ! I can hardly wait !!!
@Kafa kafica After 1948 the term Slovene was used, before we were Carynthians, Carniolians, Styrians... Before this term Slovene was mostly used for Slavic people in general.
@Kafa kafica I’m sorry. I don’t understand your point. And,to whom was it made ? Could you reiterate, please ?….
@Kafa kafica There were several Slavic principalities in which ancestors of Slovenes lived, the main one (and the oldest Slavic state) was Carantania. Without Carantania Austria would not exist. Name change came about because of historic reason, the Carantanian statehood was simply too short. Ancestors of Slovenes were divided in diferent states and administrations, their leadership was wholey replaced by forengiers and they fell under heavy asimilation.
The name Slovenci (Slovenes/Slovenians) was used by Primož Trubar in 16. century, it cames from the exprestion for the Slavs. Slovenia didn't exist in the 18. century, but Slovenes did. The oldest surviving Slovenian text is from 10th century (the original could be from the 9th), Brižinski spomeniki are also the oldest Slavic text written in latin form. Slovenes had some national recognition in Holy German empire and Austro-Hungary, their national rights were hovever seriously lacking (or being denied).
Serbians were also sometimes called serves or slaves, that doesn't mean that this was their proper name.
Excuse me, who killed Franz Ferdinand (and started WW1)?
You also mention Croatian representative Stjepan Radić, who shot him (and some other Croats) in the state assembly (practically unpunished)?
~ ° ~
Congratulations, hot topic!
Ok, the radical Serbs needed an adequate rival, so they provoked the situation (the executioner was sentenced by the partisans in 1944.).
Gavrilo Princip was "educated" by the Black Hand, I'm not saying he was guided by Chetnik (Greater Serbia) ideas, maybe even the opposite (youth = madness), but "teachers" certainly are!
Tito's Yugoslavia after 1945 was globally the best solution for all peoples and nationalities from those areas.
The kingdom with the Serbian king after SHS, which is being talked about, was certainly not that (not even as a solution after ww2)!
We saw the "modern mythomania" of the 90's ...
A-ha, yes, of course, only Serbs fought in the WW2 (although that is not the topic), good luck to everyone else (others do not matter) who left bones so that we would be better today...
It is very enjoyable listening to your historical presentations they are all factual and interesting.
Thanks as always, James 👍
Great job. Some additional infos:There were two main reasons why the young state of slovenian, croats and serbs decided to merge with the kingdom of serbia firstly it was considreded as a frendly option because serbs are south slaves as well however more important and the main reason was eminent danger of neighbor countries to crush new country from all directions namely Italians all ready advenced in the direction of Ljubljana, new countrie had no real military to stop that, Hungarian had simmilar ideas, Austrians tryed to concquer the land as well but they mostly failed because slovenian officier Rudolf Maister succesfuly defended part of the north Slovenian theritory.
A lot of Slovenian and Croatian politician became quite a bitter only 2 week after merge, because for the Serbian king this wasn't a merge of two countries, but rather a concquer of the new land for Serbian kingdom.
Serbia didnt send a major military power to retake land from Italians alhought Italian advance was stoped as was agreed, but they went in to another direction and imposed new alphabet namely cyrillic alphabet which was for the population of slovenia and vast majoriti of croatia peoples completely unreadable, also the slovenain and croatain politicians got only cosmetic roles in the new country, both nations got a feeling of a treason, which later expanded in more and more chlashes. After 1920 Serbian king did some minor changes in favor of Slovenian and Croatian nations however the bad taste in the mouth stayed up to WWII
BTW idea of the south slavs united coutry was first emerge in austro hungarian part of future yugoslavia(Zagreb/Ljubljana) not in Serbia
Thanks for sharing this additional information.
This state was in effect proto-Croatia/Slovenia, but it was not going to be allowed to remain following their relatively high position in the the hierarchy of the defeated Habsburgs, with Serbia being backed up by the French in its reconquest of Belgrade, it’s setting up of clients in Montenegro and the Banat, annexation of those areas (including the making the deposition of the Montenegrin monarchy official) and Syrmia, and finally the merger with Zagreb and the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs to form the Yugoslav kingdom. This was part of France’s anti-Communist, anti-Habsburg “cordon sanitaire”, with the State of SCS not passing the anti-Habsburg test.
Thanks for sharing this information with us!
Excellent video! Informative and interesting!
Thanks for watching!
You're so underrated its ridiculous, You're my favorite RUclips history channel
Thank you very much, Ellis. Feel free to share my content!
Who underrated this channel?
Our most beloved short-lived states series!
👏😎
You should do a video on Neutral Moresnet, its pretty close to the Netherlands so you could do it on location! It's only relatively short-lived, but unlike other short-lived states it was actually recognized. They also used Esperanto I believe. Maybe the free cities of Menton and Roquebrune-Cap-Martin too if you can dig anything up on them, I think they were independent 1848-1849.
One day for sure 👍
I am from Croatia.
🇭🇷👍
Thank you for the detailed information. I see this short-lived state as the start of Yugoslavia, which was not a catastrophe of biblical proportions, (as presented by some nationalists of different nations composing it) but the beginning of the unification of the Southern Slavs. And despite everything, it was not all bad.
Great to read your reply, once again. Thanks!
Interesting
👍
The fall of the Austrio-Hungarian Empire gave birth to some other short-lived countries too, like the Republic of Banat.
Thanks for sharing.
Thank you.
👍
I am loving this series I hope you do a lot more
For sure. There will be more episodes about short-lived states!
We were PROUD COUNTRY of South Slavs.. Hope Again we will be BIG CONFEDERATION. Same people, same blood, same roots.
Ok.
Another nice lecture, Professor!
👍👍👍
I really like the topics you bring up. You got yourself another subscriber!
Awesome! Welcome to the channel 👍
6 seconds ago ?
Yes, you're quick!
@@HistoryHustle im really quick when it realease
Croatia should have become an independent country after WW1.
The allies already drew up a map with territorial boundaries for croats and slovenes!
They were registered enemies. . They were ment to have extremely small territory around zagreb that was to be divided amongst austria and hungary. .
Slovenia was going to be like some kine of Tyrol territory and Dalmatia was ment to go to Italy!
That was the border. . The rest would all go to Yugoslavia!
Problem was, there was Serbs living in those zones. . So King Aleksander made a decision, many Serbs were begging him not to include the Croats no matter the cost!
But he had vision, he wanted to unify all slavs and eliminate serb,croat,slovene, as national terms for Yugoslavs. . He wanted the people to see it like that keeping all religions and customs just not those names
Croatia is independent now.
@@HistoryHustle, It is today and always will be independent into the future as a nation, but they will loose territory sooner or later due to unfinished business. .
They occupy lands that do not belong to them historically, just like our albanian neighbours in the south.
Do I want a war? Ofcourse not, but geopolitics always works like this in history!
Somebody does not want us to be friends, to forgive each other on issues etc.
Yet we are pretty much the same people, just different dialects and religion!
Seems like some Balkan peoples would rather live in small poor countries and be ruled by their own, rather than be part of a bigger and wealthier country while ruled from Belgrade.
Not many are worried about money otherwise mongolia would join China
Till this day an area with tensions...
@Kafa kafica It was partially religious question (Orthodox and Catholic Christians (also Protestants), Muslims). Then there is national layer- Serbs, Croats, Muslims, North Macedonians, Montenegrins and Slovenes, big minorities Albanians, Hungarians, Roma...) There were several languages spoken, two main scripts... This mix was in one state. What was the average Yugoslavian? Czechoslovakia has only one religion, but was disintegrated in 2 states on the national line Czechia and Slovakia. And in contrary to Yugoslavia, they did that peacefully.
@Kafa kafica For Slovene is the main factor the language, not the religion. North Macedonians speak also different language. You can't say only religion.
@Kafa kafica 2 days ago I met a man from Šip and he told me he was (North) Macedonian. I know a Bosnian who lives next to my parents house and he calls himself a Muslim. I mat many people from Montenegro who felt as Montenegrin I mat many Bosnians who declared them self Muslims. I think we have to respect them. I mat also many Croats and Serbians in my life. Everyone needs to be recognized and to be respected.
Aloysius Stepinac is the religious figure during this era
i think we need to reform the Austro-Hungarian Empire.. they could audition people with formidable facial hair for the job of Emperor.
Not so good with a gas mask
lol, indeed
... they were heading towards the trouble. And that is a whole history of the Balkan in a nutshell.
Yup...
@Kafa kafica Because the '90s "progressive" DNC said so. That's why.
@Kafa kafica yes, I am fully aware of that.
The Kingdom of the Serbs united with the SHS and was the only state in Europe that had recognized the SHS, whereas Austria, Hungary, and Italy worked towards partitioning it. Yugoslavia was formed as a union of political equals.
Not sure if Croats would agree..
@@numenoreaneternity6682 Majority of Croats wanted unification with the Serbs, but not if it meant being dominated and Serbianised by them in a heavily centralized state.
@@numenoreaneternity6682 When the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was established (1.12.1918.).
@@numenoreaneternity6682 Unfortunately, it is not.
I love this channel thanks for the video even the comments are interesting and educational
That's great to head. Thank you very much!
I knew nothing of this history before...still trying to make sense of the Serbian/Croatian conflict the US became involved in? it sounded like pure genocidal causes stemming from WWII with religious undertones...but this is adding some more clarity to this conflict...or not LOL:)
If you want to learn about the 1990s Yugoslav wars, please check:
ruclips.net/video/JrMX2b8LLtY/видео.html
@@HistoryHustle Thanks...I did watch the four wars video and later about Tito. I'm beginning to understand and should have known you had already covered most of my interests. The comment sections are also very enlightening with the obvious nationalism which will remain embedded in perpetuity it seems. That is perhaps not such a bad thing...diversity isn't necessarily a strength...everywhere it is found...or imposed.
Stefan..two years later, I recalled that you did this presentation. I am living in Dubrovnik and this week started a course to be a tour guide and basically across the last three days we have had a crash course in 10.000 years of Croatian history. I shall however revisit this presentation as it shall definitely help me with perspective. Thank you. Love all your presentations
Many thanks for your reply.
I shared a flat with yugoslavian in 1980 and he never mentioned what he was, just Yugoslavian. He looked like rasputin but was a good guy.
Which most likely means that he was not Croat or Slovene, because 99% of them never declared as Yugoslavs.
Think you won't see that today: someone calling himself Yugoslav and Rasputin look-a-likes.
@@goranvuletic8873 I always said before 1991 that I was Yugoslavian, after that Slovenian. Ethnicity and statehood are different things.
@@goranvuletic8873 how did you come by 99%, was there a survey?
@@atomov Kind of, just check the censuses before 1991. Also, you need to live 50+ years among Croats, Serbs etc in different parts of the Balkans to verify the results, which I did.
Short lived state videos, yes please 👏😎
There you go :)
Slavic Empire
South Slav Empire I'd say.
@Kafa kafica Serbs are Serbs, Croats are Croats, Slovenes are Slovenes... You can't make 'open eyes' like you have written to became all Serbs by Serbian domination and by Serbian king. People and nations should decide what they want and make them the nation. Too many differences, languages, religions... King didn't recognize Bosnian Muslims, Montenegrins, North Macedonians... It was bad management of the Serbian king. He had all the power with his government. He didn't fix the national and other questions within the kingdom. He was unsuccessful. And I wonder why the Kingdom Yugoslavia collapsed very quickly.
@Kafa kafica The king was unsuccessful to fix the national questions within the kingdom.
@Kafa kafica You have mentioned in 1931 census there were only 900.000 Slovenes in country with 17 million people that time. Where did you get these numbers? I found fore Slovenes 1 million, for Yugoslavia 12 million. Please sources
This one always interested me
Great!
A little of topic but history related , i was doing some reading in the history of the first world war and came across the treaty of verdun of 843 .( i was looking up the battle of verdun)
The treaty that divided the carolingian empire in to west Franconian empire , Lotheringia and east Franconian empires.
Where western Franconia would become the kingdom of France and eastern Franconia the other the kingdom of germany .
And its amazing that 1073 years later both nations chose to slug it out at Verdun. as a masterplan to win the war on the western front .
Its an interesting history to say the least France germany and the benelux + alsace-lorain in the middle of those conflicts for the past 1200 years.
Thanks for sharing this information.
What do you think about General Hotsendorf being in on the assignation of the Archduke and his wife. The Archduke had prevented the empire from going to the war with Serbia about 14 times. The General was the leader of the war party. He also directed the driver to go down the road where the Black Hand had an assassin' waiting. He made sure to kill the Archduke and Duchess bit Hotsendorf miraculously wasn't shot? It seems too convenient that the man who thwarted his plan of military glory was both dead and a cause of the war he wanted, two birds with one stone!
Didn't know this. Interesting. I was in the Vienna War Museum. There both the car and uniform of the Archduke are on display.
@@HistoryHustle As far as I know Hötzendorf was not present the day of the Attack, that was General Potiorek, an other complete idiot, though. Speculations exist, that on the one hand the "Black Hand" - yes Kafa, they did organize it - set it, for some political reason, up purposely to fail - the organisation was rather unprofessional - but the local Austrians did let it go on. Ferdinand was not liked by the " war party", that much is true, the rest makes for funny "what if"s
Hötzendorf was not in Sarajevo at all! In the car was Oskar Potiorek, the military governor of Bosnia and Herzegovina, later he "mastermind" behind the two unsuccesful AU campaigns vs Serbia. He was an utterly stupid man, and a warmonger himself, but much much lower position than Hötzendorf.
Hötzendorf was put in his position by Franz Ferdinand but FF soon saw through Hötzendorf idiocy and did all to take him out of position.
There is thus space enough for conspiracy theories as Hötzendorf would love to have FF removed, on many reasons. Still, the AU officials were truly incompetent, and if they (Hötzendorf et al) had actually planned to have FF assassinated, they more likely would have failed and their plan would have been compromised after that. For exactly this reason I'm not inclined to believe that, rather than an assassination organized by Apis Dimitrijević (competent but crazy) through proxy Mlada Bosna, as these guys also hated FF since he was, in effect, a peacemaker while the Black Hand organisation was definitely hateful of anything Austrian, especially Austrian peace.
one of our biggest mistake we made in our History (Serbian). We never should made the Kingdom, we should just take our land and leave it
I can understand that.
Memoirs of Ante Pavelic 😱no comment ‼️where did you get it ⁉️⁉️⁉️⁉️
See source in description.
Hello....and all the best, from a city I live in
Allso...all the best to Utracht, a city you come from and I realy like to visite, here and there/nicer and much more relaxed old center, including wather channels, then Amsterdam for me
Prity short and acurate story
Thank you...once more 🙂👍🍀
Wish you have good time, visiting Cr🌞atia
Many thanks! Soon another video recorded in Zagreb.
@@HistoryHustle Nice...thank you.
Ofcourse that I know for part of history when politics here ...was wrong/Ustase, Jasenovac camp, NDH, Pavelic, 1941-1945/
In the same time Tito/croat/... and many croats/in partisans with other ex Yu nationes/ are fightening that....and nacifashist
By my opinione, we all should know for the bad things happened...not to repeat tragedies......killings...destructione.
So...yust continue on a wey ...you do allready
That is actualy, ....popularisatione of a history.
There is no bad nationes....only the liders, rullers,laws, ......washed brains.
Have good time🙂👍🍀
Weer een heel interessante video man 👍
Dankjewel Cas 👍👍
Hey, you we're in my home city. We could have grabbed a bear and talk about history :-) . It was my dream to one day become a history teacher.
Cool! Hope to return one day 👍
@@HistoryHustle You're always welcome :-)
Hey it would be awesome if you could do a video on the the german perspective on the defeat of stalingrad like the one about the defeat of the battle of moscow. Great stuff BTW
One day!
@@HistoryHustle Thank you for the response, Great channel 👍
Thanks!!
Hey Stephan, why didnt this kingdom annex Albania?
Think it wanted to maintain independence. Haven't read much about Albania yet.
@@HistoryHustle oh ok.
Yugoslavia = land of South Slavs
Albanians are not South Slavs, they were considered ethnic minority in YU. Annexing Albania would significantly change ethnic (& religious) composition of country, and nobody (including Serbs) would have a majority.
So, Pasic (Serbian, later Yugoslav prime minister) rather wanted to keep control over Albania, without annexing them. They gradually lost that influence to Italy in 1920/30s..
Pasic also had personal stake in this: he owned large land properties on Kosovo, that were confiscated from Albanians in 1912 war, which would become an issue if Albanians had more political power in Yugoslavia.
It acctually had a short war vs hungary in Međimurje county and won
Thanks for sharing!
Really? I didn’t know about this, I understood that Serbia ceded some of the banat in exchange for medjumurje
The first creation of Yugoslavia was in the interest of Croatia, so we used the Serbs for our own interests.
Then was to many crossed fingers on a pockets.....to much untold ideas&reasons to make Kingdom SHS&YU.
Partialy, you are right...but, serbian politics&ideas was to create country/ even Great Serbia/in which all serbs will live
We all here....still feal it.
Hope for much better and relaxed future.🙂👍🍀
@Kafa kafica So...imagine future from that point.
Serbia get Vojvodina...where was more hungarians, croats and romanians....then serbs.
In Bosnia..could not be more then fifty/fifty
Sandjak,
Macedonia,
Kosovo.....
Crna gora...
Takva bi se Srbija grcala u krvi neprestanih pobuna ovih naroda.
Parlament bi bio nemoguc....ujedinjene bi manjine bile po zastupljenosti blizu broja srpskih poslanika.
Pokusajte zamisliti takvu zemlju?!?
Genocidom bi bilo nerjesivo.
Vidi Kosovo danas/a to je samo Kosovo....i tamo je oko 10% srba, samo/
Nitko ne moze imati sve...za dugo i pod demokratskim zakonima.....nema sanse.
Tumacite povijesne cinjenice na ekstremno ogranicen nacin.
Discussions rage on...
@@HistoryHustle Expected :) Serbians most of all they hate the truth. Yes, we (Croatia ) used them for our own interests ( because of the Italy ).
Well im from there so i havent forgotten it.
That's good 👍
Ooooh you mean Serbian imperialism?
That's what the Croats called it.
@@HistoryHustle well it was. Serbian colonialism took place in many places in their famous "agriculture reforms" which ended with taking land from bosniaks,albanians,croats,etc. and resettling the area with serbian families
@@HistoryHustle Sorry, but ...
Why Croats (they are some "bad guys", did they start wars)?
What do you think, what do members of other nationalities think about it (ok, Croats are perhaps the "loudest" because they remember 91-95, which evokes bad memories)?
I love this channel
👏😎
Are you sure you’ve got the correct Ante Pavelic ???
Yes.
Ante Pavelić, called the dentist, another Pavelić was lawyer
@Kafa kafica Truth, but that might be the words of Poglavnik, cause dentist was for unification...
Ah yes, history
👍
The ideal state.
Please explain.
But without the Serbs.. The Balkans are the way they are because of them
Ideal for who? Serbs were better off without it and the lands of Slavonia, BiH, and Dalmatia could have become part of Serbia the way it should have been. This would have prevented all the problems down the track.
@@stevie6621 I am from Dalmatia . The ancient cradle of Catholic Croatia. You ottoman orthodox serb can only dream of my Dalmatia and of Croatian regions like Slavoniaor Bosnia and Croatia that were parts of Croatia since the foundation of the first Kimgdom of Croatia in 925 AD. By that time servia didn’t even exist..you were just a Bulgarian province. Though you tried several times to steal Croatian lands like Dalmatia and Slavonia…last time 1991. but you know perfectly well how it ended for you ottoman turk serbs. Right?
@@HistoryHustle ideal since it summa up all Croatian lands. Starting from the foundation of the first medieval Kingdom of Croatia founded in 925 AD. And ideal since no Ottoman orthodox turks (aka „Serbs“) were part of it.
Can you tell me the reason you didn't mention the Bulgarians as an ethnic minority? Considering the fact that around that time the Bulgarians constituted the majority of the population of Macedonia and caused quite a few problems for Yugoslavia (one prime example is the assassination of Alexander I of Yugoslavia in 1934), just deleting them from history doesn't seem fair.
Didn't find these in my sources actually. But I believe you man.
@@HistoryHustle You don't need to believe me, just look at the censuses in Macedonia throughout the years for a start. I don't know what sources you used but one thing is for certain - they weren't historically accurate. And you probably used Serbian sources. I suggest whenever you use Balkan sources, take a look and compare them to western sources to at least see if they match or something is not right. Because most, if not all, western sources mention the presence of Bulgarians in Macedonia.
Get better mic
Ok.
can you make a video about the1923 Hamburg uprising?
Once I visit that city it sounds like an interesting idea.
👍
👍
Great video but Montenegro is not part of that state.
I see. Then I guess an error must've slipped in.
All that not was good for serbs.we still today say yugoslavia was wrong idea....ww1 and ww2 we win.but politic destroy all.
Tito was croat and dont like serbs that for we have war 91.so sad.
Troubled times yes.
5:17 That‘s the point. The three MAJOR ethnicities were SERBS, CROATS AND SLOVENES. Macedonians and Montenegrins weren‘t recognized each as ethnicities but a part of the Serb ethnic corpus, and the Bosnian Muslims were only a religious group that was not intentionally brought up to separate the Serbs and Croats from their religion, hence the Serbs are today viewed mostly as Orthodox people and Bosniaks and Croats - Muslims and Catholics.
Infact, the three new ethnicities which were created in SFR Yugoslavia were nothing but a Bolshevik propagandist plan of federalizing Yugoslavia and underestimating the Serbian dominance. Montenegrins declared themselves as Serbs while a group of people who sought friendship with Italy and a restoration of the Kingdom of Montenegro didn‘t. The Italian occupation of Montenegro only allowed them to finish their goals but risk it all under the then-rising Partisan rule which granted them the shape of a Republic with its own main ethnicity ”Montenegrins”... Bulgaromans only seceded in establishing Bulgarian rule in Macedonia after occupation but it didn‘t last for much longer. Macedonians and Muslims also separately got their own Republics and for that the new ethnicities were created.
Thanks for the additional information. Soon more on the Italian occupation of parts of Yugoslavia.
@@HistoryHustle No problem... I just find it very unfair that many people purposefully revise history in order to fit in their political goals and match them, so it would be a lot more important if others started to realize that many things aren‘t taken into consideration which is why people clash together because of their mistaken thoughts and opinions. Like the Treaty of Trianon, not only ethnicities mattered. Hungary had too much influence in the region so that had to be stopped. Centuries of ”occupation” and assimilation, and then they forget who they where and how they became what they are in Europe...
The Balkans are still messed up to this day.
Think it's better than back then.
Ever been to Croatia or Slovenia?
@@richard_from_england333 no, but I do have Bosnia 🇧🇦 friends.
@@kingerikthegreatest.ofall.7860 How can you judge the whole Balkans then?
Great video BZ.
And another postage stamp
👍👍👍
Second favourite series of this channel
Awesome!
such a short video for this interesting and sensitive subject. it lacks depth which leads to subjectivity
Feel free to share additional information.
@@HistoryHustle no problem and videos are interesting. Just saying it would be more objective and informal if it was not so short
👍
What a great success that was. Ante pavelic anyone no!
To be fair the king of Serbia did allow some local autonomy to the croats in 1929. However the ending of parliamentary government and the funding of the ustache by Mussolini. The murder of the king in France in 1934 led to an even greater centralisation of power in Serbia. The ludicrous British backed coup in 1941 to not side with the axis. Led to the German Italian and Bulgarian invasion and occupation. Although the ustache state murdered between 300000 to one million Serbs Bosnians and Jews. 1.7 million Yugoslavs died in the second world war and Tito defeated the Italians Germans and Chetniks to create a unified state. After his death and the end of communism. A civil war in Yugoslavia lasted for 4 years and the ethnic cleansing that the nkvd did to the rest of eastern Europe was brought to these lands.
@@johnthomson6507 How many Serbs etc the ustache murdered, over 300 000, please join to great serbian propaganda machine 🤮🤮🤮
More on Pavelic next week.
@@HistoryHustle one thing I will beg you, do not share serbian propaganda, if you red a books which were written by objective historians, for example, Yale professor Ivo Banac, professor at Princeton University Jozo Tomljanović....we, Croats do not need one more immoral person, who wants to spread hatred against us, my nation. So called Independent State of Croatia was no better, no worse than the other parts of occupied Europe.....
@Kafa kafica we see, especially jewish historians, sociologist named in the Jeruzalem Post how serbian propaganda doing her unbelieveble acts against us Croats, to make to others to believe they have a reason for massive agression and destroying Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Srebrenica as the cruelest mass crime after second world war, what UN declares to world what the Serbs done.....the Serbs was, are and will be subject of agression in small peninsula called the Balkans.....
Thanks for the video. I really cannot understand why the Croats and Slovenes, despite their western outlooks, would after WW1 rather live under Serbian domination in the Kingdom of SCS. Resistance against Italy was a factor I believe, but however such flawed nationhood would spell troubles in the following decades. The early 30s assassination of the king was only the first major negative outcome.
Think because of Serbian lobby.
@Kafa kafica According to conduct of population survey in Austria-Hungary in Slovenian lands, the 66% of Slovenes were peasants, 33 of theme were others. 94% of people finished schools. I know that in Kranj, where I was born, the industry started in the 19th century. The same was the case in other part of todays Slovenia. Where did you got this information that almost all Slovenes until 1918 were common peasants. Please source.
Kranj was 5000 people and had factories. Slovenia had much more evenly spread the industry around countryside in regard of Serbia. But you have been here and you know... And I see you have a lot of sources.
@Kafa kafica Please sources
@Kafa kafica I have it from the census 1910 it said 66,6% against 33%. Božo Repe, FE, Slovenci in prva svetovna vojna. I am not telling the fairy tales.
Hmm... Nice video. At the end some of the last sentences sting... "Trumbić signed up for a federal model and Pašić signed up to serve Serbian interests"... For whose interests did Trumbić serve??? Further more, the thing is that 1/3 of Croatias population was Serbian and 1/2 of Bosnias population was Serbian so it comes quite natural that Serbian representatives wanted more unitarianism on the other hand its kinda silly that anyone was afraid that "Croatia would not exist" since Croatia never even existed before WW1 and if it didn't join, it surely wouldn't have.
Realy.....?!?
@Kafa kafica Even if it is true...it can not be a positione from the most of people wich lived in Dalmatia.
It will be hard to finde in any old dalmatian city with harbour/on the coast line ore islands/ any serbian ortodox church and chirilic letters carved in stones.
Allso, Croatia as a Dutcy and kingdom...were established before Serbia.
We all know the idea and ideology of a great Serbia, all others then serbs know it prity well....from a first hand.
Allso, national countries develope trough 19th century.
Under Dusan arround 13/14 th century...were croats, greeks, bulgars, albanians,.....It was not that only serbs live inside those frontiers, even more, number of serbian populatione was smaller the all others togethers.Hope, you understand those words.
Before was more like possetione of some nobelty, kings, families.
@Kafa kafica Teach me....
I am all ears
@Kafa kafica Maybe you heared for king Tomislav....and bettle in Bosnia 926. against Bulgarian imperia.
Then....croats actualy safe serbs....not to become Bulgaria......more precise , bulgarian province
@@daz7122 Ma....ajme, jada od zadrte mito anije i zatvaranja ociju pred cinjenicama
A...tek tumacenja
Nacisti su se vodili "povijesnim pravom" i "zivotnim prostorom"
Cini se da su u velikom problemu da odluce tko su njima "zidovi"....jesu li to BOSNJACI, ALBANCI, HRVATI,BUGARI.....
Kako stvari stoje...pronasli su ih u najslabijem narodu po brojnosti...Crnogorcima......trenutno.
Ta iskljuciva nacisovinisticka mitomanska tvrdoglavost......bojim se da nece proci tek tako.
Ali....eto, tako je...kako je
Sigurno im nece uspjeti ikoga uspavati.
Moguce je da ce se sami urusiti....jer si nabacuju strahoviti teret.....normalni ljudi to nece moci nositi u nedogled.
Ah....
A tek Nikopolje...i ukupno vazaljenje turcima...kroz stoljeca
Pa seobe....pa koristenje beneficija/samo da se ne radi i privredjuje/... po vojnoj krajini
Rastrce se na sve strane kada se pojavi pjetao u kokosinjcu.
Kada se stvari smire...i osjete priliku...eto ti jada za sve u blizini.
Onda...kroz sve Juge....ma, umjestu da budu primjer za okupljanje juznih slavena.....bugari im preopaki da udju u Yu......albanaca previse.....za isto....i ostali im "samo " hrvati.....ah
Probudili se bosnjaci.......dotuzilo albancima.......crnogorci fasuju/za sada/....
Slovenci...dovoljno pametni da iskoriste svoje pozicije.
Malo sam pretjerao u piskaranju....takav dan....takvi mulci i bedaci...
Moras prvo objasniti kada su i kako nastali "hrvati i slovenci", da bi mogao da pricas o bilo kakvim jugoslavijama
Please explain.
@@HistoryHustle Просто и једноставно, никакви хрвати и словенци до прве половине 19 века нису постојали, осим у германским и ватиканским плановима да се разбије Србски народ на што више ентитета. Само глупост и наивност тадашње Србске елите да признају све што им запад потури, омогућила је тој скупини конвертита да се називају "народом".
dr Stevan Tomović - Istorija Hrvata - velika vatikanska laž
Vatikan - leglo falsifikata - prvi deo
Porfirogenitovo delo - vatikanski falsifikat o poreklu Hrvata i Srba. Velika Hrvatska
Poput Jevreja, i Srbi su nezaobilazna žrtva manipulacija Rima i njegove falsifikovane istorije. Delo „O upravljanju carstvom“ Konstantina Porfirogenita, kao glavnog izvora o poreklu i dolasku Slovena na Balkan, isto je falsifikovano, poput gore opisanih dokumenata, kao i brojnih drugih koji ovde nisu spomenuti. Većina istoričara bi se složila da kada ne bi postojalo ovo Porfirogenitovo delo, onda o dolasku i poreklu Srba i Hrvata, i poreklu njihovih imena, ne bismo znali ništa, i u njihovoj najranijoj istoriji ostala bi rupa. Baš ta činjenica podstakla je Vatikan da to delo falsifikuje. Baš to saznanje, da će lažiranjem glavnog istorijskog izvora o najdaljoj prošlosti Srba i Hrvata moći da izmeni budućnost tog naroda, i da će istim moći da manipuliše, bio je glavni motiv Vatikanu da nastavi sa svojim uobičajenim prljavim poslom prikrivanja istine. Zar bi i mogla da propusti ovako lak plen?
Da bismo videli istinsko poreklo Hrvata i imena Hrvata, kao i značaj takvog saznanja, neophodno je prvo proveriti postojeća tumačenja i teorije, a koja su uglavnom bazirana na delu vizantijskog cara Porfirogenita. I zaista, dovoljno je pogledati stavove zvanične nauke o poreklu Hrvata i imena „Hrvati”, pa videti da su isti zasnovani isključivo na ovome Porfirogenitovom delu kao glavnom izvoru. Ipak, koliko su njihovi stavovi ispravni, pokazaćemo sad na osnovu samog teksta tog dela, koji je zapravo još jedan u nizu vatikanskih falsifikata. A kao što ćemo kasnije prikazati, poreklo i cela istorija Hrvata je falsifikovana - isto kao i u slučaju istorije Srba i mnogih drugih naroda po svetu.
Da pomenuto delo zaista predstavlja falsifikat o poreklu Hrvata pokazaće nam primeri iz samog teksta. Prvi od njih govori o tome kako je navodno nastalo ime Hrvata. Ovako je tamo zapisano:
‘Hrvat’ na slovenskom jeziku znači ‘onaj koji poseduje veliku teritoriju’.
U Porfirogenitovom delu piše da su Hrvati tako nazvani zato što su u svome posedu navodno držali mnoge zemlje i veliku teritoriju. Zanimljivo je da u istom delu pisac čak i Franačku, koja je držala polovinu Evrope, naziva „velika Franačka“ (iako to nije sam naziv države), pa onda čudi da je i jedno od slovenskih plemena nazivano „Veliki Hrvati“.
Očito je da naziv „Hrvat”, ne ni na jednom slovenskom jeziku, već ni na jednom jeziku na svetu ne znači „onaj koji drži veliku teritoriju”. A zašto bi onda jedan vizantijski car napisao tako nešto, pogotovo ako se uzme u obzir da je car Porfirogenit bio veoma obrazovan vladar?
Zvanično objašnjenje glasi da je Porfirogenit, navodno, zapisao takvo poreklo imena Hrvata, pošto je ta reč veoma slična grčkoj reči hora, što bi značilo „zemlja“. Međutim, ni u tom slučaju nije nimalo jasno zašto onda hrvatsko ime ne znači „zemljani“, „oni koji drže zemlju“, a ne „oni koji drže veliku teritoriju“. No, svu tu gungulu laži razotkriva sledeće pitanje: Kako to da su Hrvati, koji su se doselili sa Srbima na Balkan, kako kaže Porfirogenitovo delo, dobili ime po grčkoj reči hora, a da su Srbi dobili svoje ime po latinskoj reči servus? I Hrvati i Srbi su se zajedno doselili na Balkan, ali je vizantijski vladar Srbe nazvao po latinskoj reči za „roba“, a Hrvate po grčkoj reči za „zemlju“; pa da li se u Vizantiji govorilo latinskim ili grčkim jezikom? Još je veći problem u tome što u Porfirogenitovom delu piše da naziv „Hrvat“ ima takvo značenje na slovenskom jeziku, a ne na grčkom, tako da ta njihova priča o vezi grčke reči hora i imena „Hrvat“ ne pije vodu. Sasvim je jasno da je to neko umetnuo u Porfirogenitovo delo u kasnijem dobu.
Takođe, „Porfirogenitovo“ izvođenje srpskog imena od latinske reči servi u značenju „robovi“ nemoguće je iz još jednog razloga, a to je da su i u Srednjoj Evropi - isto kao na Balkanu - živeli Srbi pod tim imenom. Srednjoevropski Srbi se kasnije spominju u franačkim analima, i to su Srbi koji nisu nikad bili pod vlašću Vizantije, niti su dolazili na Balkan, pa nisu ni mogli da dobiju takvo ime po latinskoj reči za „robove“ od vizantijskog cara. O ovome je govorio i najznaniji hrvatski istorik, Ferdo Šišić.
On je smatrao da je poreklo imena Hrvata i Srba, koje navodi Porfirogenit, nenaučno i netačno. On slično kaže da ako su Srbi zaista dobili naziv po latinskoj reči za robove, kako onda objasniti tvrdnju cara Porfirogenita da su Srbi potekli od nekrštenih Srba iz tzv. „Bele Srbije“ u Srednjoj Evropi, koja se dakle nazivala Srbija iako se nalazila van Balkana i domašaja Vizantije? Znači, zvala se Bela Srbija pre no što su Srbi tobož uopšte postali robovi vizantijskog cara, te on nije ni mogao da im da ime Servi, u značenju „robovi“, čak i ako ne uzmemo u obzir sve druge izvore iz Ranog srednjeg veka i antičkih vremena koji nam govore o srpskom imenu. Ovo nije toliko bitno kao dodatni dokaz da je etimologija srpskog imena od reči servi netačna, već je bitno iz razloga što pokazuje koliko su falsifikatori bili neoprezni i aljkavi u svom naivnom i sa velikom mržnjom motivisanom krivotvorenju istorije Hrvata i Srba.
U vezi sa tim, istoričar Ivan Lučić, koji se često smatra „ocem hrvatske istoriografije“, Porfirogenitove je tvrdnje o Hrvatima i Srbima nazivao „trabunjanje Latina“. Dok konačan dokaz dolazi iz samog Porfirogenitovog dela:
[stextbox id=“info“]Čak i da ne znamo ništa o njemu kao falsifikatu, dakle, čak i da ga smatramo za verodostojno delo, samo je jedan podatak dovoljan da sruši celu tu iluzornu vavilonsku kulu od falsifikovanih karata. Naime, u vreme cara Iraklija, a u čije su vreme Srbi navodno dobili ime po latinskoj reči za „robove“ (lat. servi), uopšte se nije govorilo latinskim, već grčkim jezikom! Štaviše, u Vizantiji se govorilo grčkim od tog doba, pa sve do nestanka iste u 15. veku; latinski nije bio službeni jezik na vizantijskom dvoru. Kako su onda mogli Srbi dobiti ime po latinskoj reči za robove, pošto su navodno bili „robovi romejskog cara“? Na grčkom se „rob“ ne kaže ni servus, niti nešto slično tome, već doulos. To je samo dodatni dokaz da su vatikanski falsifikatori, koji su pisali i govorili latinskim jezikom, samo ubacili tu neistinu o poreklu imena „Srbi“, pretvorivši grčko doulos u latinsko servus. Onaj koji je u Porfirogenitovom delu zapisao da su Srbi „robovi“, taj isti je u mnogo kasnijem dobu govorio da su Srbi, i uopšte Sloveni, „ropska rasa“ kojom treba da se vlada. Da nije toliko providno i naivno odrađeno, možda bi i moglo da im se poveruje.
I kao što je Rim Srbe hteo da ponizi nazvavši ih svojim robovima, tako je na sličan način, u tom spisu, hteo Hrvate da prikaže kao slavan narod i najznačajniji politički faktor na Balkanu, a u cilju da ih odvoji od Srba. Zato tamo i piše da naziv „Hrvat“ znači „onaj koji drži veliku teritoriju“. S tim u vezi, čak i da se u Vizantiji tada nije govorilo grčkim, već latinskim jezikom, opet se nailazi na kontradiktornost, jer je ime Hrvata kod Porfirogenita izvedeno od grčke reči „hora“, što znači „zemlja“. Zato u istom delu i piše kako je hrvatsko ime navodno nastalo od „neke slovenske reči“. Na koji god način pokušamo da opravdamo delo Porfirogenita, uvek nailazimo na neko protivrečje.
U vezi s tim u istom tekstu se spominje i termin „Velike Hrvatske“, iako nikad ni na jednoj jedinoj karti Evrope nije zabeleženo postojanje države sa tim imenom. Štaviše, ovaj naziv je najviše bio popularan za vreme osnivanja ustaške države NDH, kad se pod tim podrazumevala Hrvatska koja je trebalo da obuhvata i Sloveniju i Bosnu i Hercegovinu i delove današnje Srbije. Međutim, kao što nikada u istoriji nije postojala Velika Srbija, tako isto nije postojala Velika Hrvatska, a naročito ne u Srednjem veku. Uostalom, niko od istoričara i ne zna gde se tačno u Srednjoj Evropi Velika Hrvatska nalazila.
Često se ova tzv. „Velika Hrvatska“ poistovećuje i sa srednjoevropskom Belom Hrvatskom iz Porfirogenitovog dela, no ipak, ni ona nikada nije postojala. Nekome će to možda izgledati čudno, ali to tako biva kada se krene u razotkrivanje falsifikata, prosto je nemoguće ne naići na stvari koje je teže progutati iz jednog zalogaja. Ipak, svu ovu gungulu oko termina Velika, Bela Hrvatska rešili su već sami hrvatski istoričari. Evo šta kaže "hrvatski" lingvista i istorik Vatroslav Jagić: „Bela i Velika nekrštena Hrvatska je izmišljena zemlja“. Potpuno isto se kaže i za tzv. nekrštenu (pagansku) Belu Srbiju, koja se isto navodi u Porfirogenitovom delu, kao sused Bele Hrvatske:ona nije postojala.
Savremeni "hrvatski" istoričar Ivan Mužić potpuno razjašnjava svu ovu problematičnu situaciju, kad kaže kako „Oznaka megale u DAI nema značenje prostorne veličine. To nije Velika Hrvatska nego stara, prva Hrvatska iz koje su (se) Hrvati iselili. M. Kuzmić je tačno protumačio pojmove Bijela i Velika Hrvatska u DAI. On je naveo 24 primjera, a od toga su 22 primjera iz djela raznih pisaca koji potvrđuju da megale znači stara, starija, prva“. I eto objašnjenja: nije to ni Velika, ni Bela, niti bilo koja druga obojena Hrvatska, to je „Stara Hrvatska“, što će reći, prvobitno mesto sa kojeg su Hrvati došli na Balkan
@@necamilosavljevic8722go away freak
In 1918 in Zagreb formed State Slovenes, Croats and Serbs but none was recognize this state.
In December, 1 1918. in Belgrade formed - Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. From 1929 change name in Yugoslavia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia
Please watch the video.
@@HistoryHustle Yes I made mistake.
No problem 👍