Austria and Slavs (was O Boze)
bab...@netscape.net
accessing....
In his post Misk...@beer.com implied that Franz Ferdinand wanted to annex
Serbia.
In a letter the Count von Berchtold, the Foreign Minister, Franz Ferdinand
wrote:
"...God forbid that we annex Serbia. We'd spend millions on keeping those
people down and still have a horrendous insurgent movement. As for the
irredentists within our frontiers, the ones to whom hotheads in our
government are pointing - all that would stop the moment we give our Slavs
something of a comfortable, just and good existance".
In a dispatch to General Conrad, head of the Austrian military and enemy
of Franz Ferdinand on the Serbian question -
"...His Imperial Highness wishes Your Excellency to understand that neither
he nor any Austrian patriot covets a square meter of Serbian ground. His
Imperial Highness is further convinced that if we march on Serbia, Russia
will march on us. His Imperial Highness is further convinced that war
between Austria and Russia would encourage revolution in both countries
and thereby cause the Emperor and the tsar to push each other off their
thrones. For these reasons His Imperial Highness considers war lunacy.
He considers preludes to war, such as constant requests for mobilization,
preludes to lunacy..."
----taken from Frederic Morton's
"Thunder at Twilight"
I'm not sure what they taught you in Yugoslavia about the "hero"
Gavrilo Princip....
But you see that Franz Ferdinand was quite dangerous to Serbia because his
ideas (which probably would have been implemented eventually because he was
the heir to the throne)of a central European multinational state would thwart
Serbia's plans. His assassination allowed those like Conrad to begin the
war.
Nevertheless, Austria was justified in invasion because Princip was an
agent of the Serbian government. (although this was not shown until well
after the war).
It was, as I have already written, real poetic justice that Romanov, the
fool who gave the regicidal Serbian regime carte blanche, was himself
murdered.
Masaryk flirted with Hapsburg recognition as late as 1915 (history has shown
him to be right the first time) and after the war the Hungarians did not have
Karl as their king only due to foreign pressure.
As for my nationality miskamen, I'm not German, though a couple of my Slavic
nationalist relatives were personal friends of Franz Josef. The Austrians
delivered us from cultural annhialation at the hands of the Poles.
Babai
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Goran
>Serbia.
>In a letter the Count von Berchtold, the Foreign Minister, Franz Ferdinand
>wrote:
>"...God forbid that we annex Serbia. We'd spend millions on keeping those
>people down and still have a horrendous insurgent movement. As for the
>irredentists within our frontiers, the ones to whom hotheads in our
>government are pointing - all that would stop the moment we give our Slavs
>something of a comfortable, just and good existance".
Well, it seemed like dear Franz was first to remember present US tactics.
Not to rule over them directly but to controll them.
Austria had interests to spread to the south, that is why Serbs were their
oponents. No matter what they wanted to do with Serbia, they did not want
good to us.
Also, "their" Slavs wanted to be free.
Also, he conquered Bosnia and annexed it, just 6 years before WW1.
>In a dispatch to General Conrad, head of the Austrian military and enemy
>of Franz Ferdinand on the Serbian question -
>"...His Imperial Highness wishes Your Excellency to understand that neither
>he nor any Austrian patriot covets a square meter of Serbian ground. His
>Imperial Highness is further convinced that if we march on Serbia, Russia
>will march on us. His Imperial Highness is further convinced that war
>between Austria and Russia would encourage revolution in both countries
>and thereby cause the Emperor and the tsar to push each other off their
>thrones. For these reasons His Imperial Highness considers war lunacy.
>He considers preludes to war, such as constant requests for mobilization,
>preludes to lunacy..."
> ----taken from Frederic Morton's
> "Thunder at Twilight"
Than what a fuck happened in 1914?
They even attacked Serbia across Bosnia to prevent uprising of Bosnian
Serbs.
>I'm not sure what they taught you in Yugoslavia about the "hero"
>Gavrilo Princip....
>But you see that Franz Ferdinand was quite dangerous to Serbia because his
>ideas (which probably would have been implemented eventually because he
>was
>the heir to the throne)of a central European multinational state would
thwart
>Serbia's plans. His assassination allowed those like Conrad to begin the
>war.
You fail to see one thing: he wanted "central European multinational state"
under Austrian and Hungarian rule and against the will of most central
Europeans.
If they wanted something good for "their" lands, why did not they make
referendum or smthg like that? They wanted to rule over people against their
will "for their sake". I bet every dictator ment the same.
>Nevertheless, Austria was justified in invasion because Princip was an
>agent of the Serbian government. (although this was not shown until well
>after the war).
According to which international law they could attack independent country
without any PROOF. They had no way to know about proofs well after the war.
>It was, as I have already written, real poetic justice that Romanov, the
>fool who gave the regicidal Serbian regime carte blanche, was himself
>murdered.
Your hatred will eat you alive. Czar Nikolai II choosed not to let down his
ally. It costed him his life, but he still chosed not to let down his ally.
We can just admire to that.
Freedom of one people is much more important of life of one ruler, and
therefore, your regicidal bullshit is - bullshit.
Leszek Andrzej Kleczkowski
: As for my nationality miskamen, I'm not German, though a couple of my
: The Austrians delivered us from cultural annhialation at the hands of
: the Poles.
Has this annhialation anything to do with inhaling when talking
'bout Franz Josef era and Poles?
Leszek
---
Smart questions to stupid answers
bab...@netscape.net
"Goran" <bos...@beotel.yu> wrote:
..........cut..................
> >In a dispatch to General Conrad, head of the Austrian military and enemy
> >of Franz Ferdinand on the Serbian question -
> >"...His Imperial Highness wishes Your Excellency to understand that neither
> >he nor any Austrian patriot covets a square meter of Serbian ground. His
> >Imperial Highness is further convinced that if we march on Serbia, Russia
> >will march on us. His Imperial Highness is further convinced that war
> >between Austria and Russia would encourage revolution in both countries
> >and thereby cause the Emperor and the tsar to push each other off their
> >thrones. For these reasons His Imperial Highness considers war lunacy.
> >He considers preludes to war, such as constant requests for mobilization,
> >preludes to lunacy..."
> > ----taken from Frederic Morton's
> > "Thunder at Twilight"
>
> Than what a fuck happened in 1914?
> They even attacked Serbia across Bosnia to prevent uprising of Bosnian
> Serbs.
This was *after* Franz Ferdinand's death. He would have opposed such
actions (as I have shown). Upon his elimination, nothing stood in the way
of pro-war forces within the government.
>
> You fail to see one thing: he wanted "central European multinational state"
> under Austrian and Hungarian rule and against the will of most central
> Europeans.
Not quite. In fact, during Franz Josef's illness in early 1914 Franz
Ferdinand, his successor, drew up plans for eliminating Tisza, the Prime
Minister of Hungary who held on to Magyar rule at Slav expense. He planned to
give the right to vote to landless people - largely poor Croats who had been
dominated by Hungary. Vienna's central control would apply only to military
and some financial concerns, while the regions of Bohemia, Croatia, Slovenia,
Galicia, Hungary, etc. would have broad cultural and political autonomy
(Morton's book - though I have read this in several other places also). In
case Tisza refused to step down in order to thwart these plans, Franz
Ferdinand had arranged for a loyal garrison in Budapest under General von
Terstyanski to take control. He saw the dangers of Slavic oppression and was
putting an end to them. Franz Ferdinand was a visionary - a real heir of
Joseph II.
So, Franz Ferdinand was the least deserving of assassination, although
his murder was most useful to Serbian extremeists.
> If they wanted something good for "their" lands, why did not they make
> referendum or smthg like that? They wanted to rule over people against their
> will "for their sake". I bet every dictator ment the same.
Good point. But Sudeten Germans, the population of what later became western
Romania (Hungarians in Transyvania), not to mention millions of Ukrainians in
eastern Galicia were not given this right either. And how happy were Croats
under the Serbian king? So Austria was even on this point not worse than its
successors - and had the potential of being much better. The people of much
of east-central Europe did not have it as good as they did in 1914 until the
1990's. Perhaps only Poles and Czechoslovaks did - although their vacation
was brief also.
>
> Your hatred will eat you alive. Czar Nikolai II choosed not to let down his
> ally. It costed him his life, but he still chosed not to let down his ally.
> We can just admire to that.
Princip was tied to the Black Hand, a terrorist organization headed
by Dimitrijevic, head of Serbia's Intelligence Bureau. Romanov went
to war in support of this regime that sponsored murder. How many millions
Russians died in order to defend this little murderous regime? I have no
pity for Romanov whatsoever, only for his family.
Babai
> Freedom of one people is much more important of life of one ruler, and
> therefore, your regicidal bullshit is - bullshit.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
spea...@netcom.ca
Isn't it obvious that Babail indended to type "annihilation"?
The Germans were the only ones to use forced inhalation methods
to achieve imperialistic goals, and that was in the WWII era.
The Poles, as I recall, employed the more traditional means as
the opportunity presented itself...
GHC
Hoodie Rooster
bab...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> In article <7b8ufo$6lj$1...@readme.uio.no>,
> lakl...@news.uio.no (Leszek Andrzej Kleczkowski) wrote:
> > bab...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> > Has this annhialation anything to do with inhaling when talking
> > 'bout Franz Josef era and Poles?
>
> Yeah...that nasty Franz Josef had the temerity to curb Polish oppression
> of Ruthenian (Ukrainian) peasants, of allowing Ukrainian to be taught in
> schools, etc.
Let's put it simple, he had the temerity to curb the Polish
population so he could meddle with their affairs and those
of the Ruthenians. Had he loved the Ruthenians so much he would
have let hem go, as well as the Poles, but he didn't.
I very much like the idea of the Poles' and Ruthenians' staying
away from each other, however.
Hoodie Rooster
> I guess Germans should now start complaining about FDR,
> Japanese about Douglas, etc.
>
bab...@netscape.net
lakl...@news.uio.no (Leszek Andrzej Kleczkowski) wrote:
> bab...@netscape.net wrote:
> Has this annhialation anything to do with inhaling when talking
> 'bout Franz Josef era and Poles?
Yeah...that nasty Franz Josef had the temerity to curb Polish oppression
of Ruthenian (Ukrainian) peasants, of allowing Ukrainian to be taught in
schools, etc. I guess Germans should now start complaining about FDR,
Japanese about Douglas, etc.
Babai
>
> Leszek
> ---
> Smart questions to stupid answers
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Goran
>> They even attacked Serbia across Bosnia to prevent uprising of Bosnian
>> Serbs.
>This was *after* Franz Ferdinand's death. He would have opposed such
>actions (as I have shown). Upon his elimination, nothing stood in the way
>of pro-war forces within the government.
Well, terrible accident then.
>> You fail to see one thing: he wanted "central European multinational
state"
>> under Austrian and Hungarian rule and against the will of most central
>> Europeans.
>Not quite. In fact, during Franz Josef's illness in early 1914 Franz
>Ferdinand, his successor, drew up plans for eliminating Tisza, the Prime
>Minister of Hungary who held on to Magyar rule at Slav expense. He planned
to
>give the right to vote to landless people - largely poor Croats who had
been
>dominated by Hungary. Vienna's central control would apply only to
military
>and some financial concerns, while the regions of Bohemia, Croatia,
Slovenia,
>Galicia, Hungary, etc. would have broad cultural and political autonomy
>(Morton's book - though I have read this in several other places also). In
>case Tisza refused to step down in order to thwart these plans, Franz
>Ferdinand had arranged for a loyal garrison in Budapest under General von
>Terstyanski to take control. He saw the dangers of Slavic oppression and
was
>putting an end to them. Franz Ferdinand was a visionary - a real heir of
>Joseph II.
>So, Franz Ferdinand was the least deserving of assassination,
>although his murder was most useful to Serbian extremeists.
All this stuff were awfuly nice of him. But what he planned was to give to
peoples things they should have anyway.
And peoples wanted these things and did not want Austrian or Hungarian
domination. I fail to see reason for it to exist even if it is nice and
peaceful reign over peoples that want to be free.
About murder being useful to Serbian extremists, it was useful to Austrian
extremists too. So what?
And, Ferdinand was not coming in Bosnia in visit to Bosnian archduke, but as
representative of an repressive and foreign occupational regime.
Gavrilo Princip was born in village near Bosansko Grahovo, western Bosnia.
He was not happy about foreigners ruling his country.
>> If they wanted something good for "their" lands, why did not they make
>> referendum or smthg like that? They wanted to rule over people against
>> their will "for their sake". I bet every dictator ment the same.
>Good point. But Sudeten Germans, the population of what later became
western
>Romania (Hungarians in Transyvania), not to mention millions of Ukrainians
in
>eastern Galicia were not given this right either.
Well, it is bad, but Germans and Hungarians had to pay for things they did
in the war and ruling over other peoples agaisnt their will. I do not say it
is right, but it was probably how winners thought at the moment.
>And how happy were Croats under the Serbian king?
I do not know. And I am not one to blame about this. Croats decided to join
Kingdom ruled by Serbian dinasty. If they wanted to leave later, I think
they should be let go.
>So Austria was even on this point not worse than its successors
To Germans and Hungarians maybe. But Czech, Slovak, Slovenians, Romanians,
Serbs and Croats wouldn't agree. And I think they are one to ask, not
Austrians.
>- and had the potential of being much better.
Subjugated peoples should decide do they want to enjoy this potentieal
goodness.
>The people of much
>of east-central Europe did not have it as good as they did in 1914 until
the
>1990's. Perhaps only Poles and Czechoslovaks did - although their vacation
>was brief also.
Well, it is probably because of the war Austro-Hungary started. If dividing
of AH was done peacefully, it would be better.
>> Your hatred will eat you alive. Czar Nikolai II choosed not to let down
his
>> ally. It costed him his life, but he still chosed not to let down his
ally.
>> We can just admire to that.
>Princip was tied to the Black Hand, a terrorist organization headed
>by Dimitrijevic, head of Serbia's Intelligence Bureau.
Ok.
>Romanov went to war in support of this regime that sponsored murder.
Romanov went to war to support his ally that was attacked.
>How many millions Russians died in order to defend this little murderous
>regime?
Yep, I am sure Czar Nikolai was guilty because AH started the war.
>I have no pity for Romanov whatsoever, only for his family.
Well, your problem.
bab...@netscape.net
"Goran" <bos...@beotel.yu> wrote:
...cut.....
> >In fact, during Franz Josef's illness in early 1914 Franz
> >Ferdinand, his successor, drew up plans for eliminating Tisza, the Prime
> >Minister of Hungary who held on to Magyar rule at Slav expense. He planned
> >to give the right to vote to landless people - largely poor Croats who had
> >been dominated by Hungary. Vienna's central control would apply only to
> >military and some financial concerns, while the regions of Bohemia, Croatia,
> >Slovenia, Galicia, Hungary, etc. would have broad cultural and political
>autonomy (Morton's book - though I have read this in several other places
>also). In case Tisza refused to step down in order to thwart these plans,
>Franz Ferdinand had arranged for a loyal garrison in Budapest under General
>vonTerstyanski to take control. He saw the dangers of Slavic oppression and
> >was putting an end to them. Franz Ferdinand was a visionary - a real heir of
> >Joseph II.
> >So, Franz Ferdinand was the least deserving of assassination,
> >although his murder was most useful to Serbian extremeists.
>
> All this stuff were awfuly nice of him. But what he planned was to give to
> peoples things they should have anyway.
I agree.
> And peoples wanted these things and did not want Austrian or Hungarian
> domination.
But such a system would not be domination - unless you believe NATO countries
are dominated by the US. As for rejecting the Hapsburgs - did you know that
the father of Czechoslovakia considered Hapsburg protection for his country
as late as 1915? That Ruthenians (Ukrainians) were known as the "Tyroleans
of the East" for their loyalty? That after Franz Ferdinand's assassination
Sarajevo erupred in violence as angry Croats and Muslims attacked Serbian
neighborhoods in retribution? The seperatist tendancies of most of the
peoples of Austria-Hungary were probably similar to those of French Canada,
i.e. considerable but not desperate. Of course, once the ship was sinking
after W.W.II it wasn't unreasonable for everyone to jump off....
> I fail to see reason for it to exist even if it is nice and
> peaceful reign over peoples that want to be free.
Well, I agree that ultimate independance would have been ideal. But history
has shown what has happened to these small weak states that served as
ping-pong balls in the battle between Germany and Russia. Would Hitler have
occupied Prague if it were part of a large multinational empire rather than
merely a small state with under 8 million people? It seems likely that
without the central European power vacuum caused by the dismemberment of
Austria-Hungary, the occupation of central and eastern Europe by Hitler, and
its ultimate enslavement under the USSR, would not have happened. So yes, if
the reign was peaceful and decentralized, there was a strong need for this
multinational state.
> About murder being useful to Serbian extremists, it was useful to Austrian
> extremists too. So what?
It was just a tragedy for central- and eastern Europe, that's what. The main
point was that, far from an act of heroism, Princip's act was a real tragedy.
> And, Ferdinand was not coming in Bosnia in visit to Bosnian archduke, but as
> representative of an repressive and foreign occupational regime.
> Gavrilo Princip was born in village near Bosansko Grahovo, western Bosnia.
> He was not happy about foreigners ruling his country.
Well, many others did not share his convictions. One of the conspirator's
(Ilic? - I'm not sure) father hung up an Austrian flag and really hated his
son's involvement in anti-Hapsburg groups. So what? There were no massive
revolts or guerrila warfare, like the intifada in Israel or the situation
against the Turks in Kurdistan. Small groups of conspirators financed and
armed from abroad are not indicative of a broad desire for independence.
.......cut...........
>
> >So Austria was even on this point not worse than its successors
>
> To Germans and Hungarians maybe. But Czech, Slovak, Slovenians, Romanians,
> Serbs and Croats wouldn't agree. And I think they are one to ask, not
> Austrians.
Well....with the exceptions of Serbs the rights of the other nations,
particularly after the brief "vacation" of the 1920's and early 30's,
declined precipitously. Austria-Hungary was not as oppressive in 1914 as
Czechoslovakia and Romania in 1984. Authors such as Kundera were not hounded
into exile.
.....cut.......
>
> Well, it is probably because of the war Austro-Hungary started.
Hey - if Milosevic were assassinated by a conspirators armed and helped
by the Albanian government - would Serbia have the right to invade Albania and
sort things out? I would say so.
> If dividing
> of AH was done peacefully, it would be better.
The division was the problem, as I have shown......and it was not necessary.
cheers,
Babai
> >> Your hatred will eat you alive. Czar Nikolai II choosed not to let down
> his
> >> ally. It costed him his life, but he still chosed not to let down his
> ally.
> >> We can just admire to that.
> >Princip was tied to the Black Hand, a terrorist organization headed
> >by Dimitrijevic, head of Serbia's Intelligence Bureau.
>
> Ok.
>
> >Romanov went to war in support of this regime that sponsored murder.
>
> Romanov went to war to support his ally that was attacked.
>
> >How many millions Russians died in order to defend this little murderous
> >regime?
>
> Yep, I am sure Czar Nikolai was guilty because AH started the war.
>
> >I have no pity for Romanov whatsoever, only for his family.
>
> Well, your problem.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
bab...@netscape.net
In article <7begjq$o41$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
bab...@netscape.net wrote:
> But such a system would not be domination - unless you believe NATO countries
> are dominated by the US. As for rejecting the Hapsburgs - did you know that
> the father of Czechoslovakia considered Hapsburg protection for his country
> as late as 1915? That Ruthenians (Ukrainians) were known as the "Tyroleans
> of the East" for their loyalty? That after Franz Ferdinand's assassination
> Sarajevo erupred in violence as angry Croats and Muslims attacked Serbian
> neighborhoods in retribution? The seperatist tendancies of most of the
> peoples of Austria-Hungary were probably similar to those of French Canada,
> i.e. considerable but not desperate. Of course, once the ship was sinking
> after W.W.II it wasn't unreasonable for everyone to jump off....
>
Should be W.W.I.........
Babai
louis
Marseille.France
Goran
>> All this stuff were awfuly nice of him. But what he planned was to give
to
>> peoples things they should have anyway.
>I agree.
>> And peoples wanted these things and did not want Austrian or Hungarian
>> domination.
>But such a system would not be domination - unless you believe NATO
>countries are dominated by the US.
Is there US domination over NATO countries and is it based just on NATO
existance is another topic.
Peoples of AH sure were dominated by Austrians and Hungarians.
>As for rejecting the Hapsburgs - did you know that
>the father of Czechoslovakia considered Hapsburg protection for his country
>as late as 1915?
No.
>That Ruthenians (Ukrainians) were known as the "Tyroleans
>of the East" for their loyalty?
No. Was it because Poles were maltreating them and Hapsburgs protected them?
I think I read you said something like this.
>That after Franz Ferdinand's assassination
>Sarajevo erupred in violence as angry Croats and Muslims attacked Serbian
>neighborhoods in retribution?
Yes. They were most probably manipulated by Austrian agents and Catholic
priests.
>The seperatist tendancies of most of the
>peoples of Austria-Hungary were probably similar to those of French Canada,
>i.e. considerable but not desperate.
Well, they are still more important then wish of Hapsburgs to rule great
Empire.
And, most peoples is not equal all peoples. What are we going to do with
other-then-most peoples?
>Of course, once the ship was sinking
>after W.W.II it wasn't unreasonable for everyone to jump off....
Probably typing error, you meant WW1?
Well, honestly, except for Bosnia and Serb populated aerea of Vojvodina,
Slavonia, Dalmacia and Croatia, I do not care.
>> I fail to see reason for it to exist even if it is nice and
>> peaceful reign over peoples that want to be free.
>Well, I agree that ultimate independance would have been ideal. But history
>has shown what has happened to these small weak states that served as
>ping-pong balls in the battle between Germany and Russia. Would Hitler
have
>occupied Prague if it were part of a large multinational empire rather than
>merely a small state with under 8 million people?
Your insisting on necessarity of AH starts to sound irrational already.
You can not blame the victim, what I mean, you can not blame i.e.
Czechoslovakia for being small, weak and independent. It is Hitler who is
guilty, and he invaded much bigger and more powerful countries then TCH.
If AH was existing in 1941. it is more possible that we would have another
strong Hitler's ally in a middle of Europe then small peoples would be
protected.
Agressions should never happened, it is much more easy and logical then to
presume that peoples should be subjugated to powerful empire so they could
keep their freedom. Existence of such "Empires" is acceptable just in case
of i.e. EU or NATO, when countries unite by their will. But same as other
Empires, they can become tool of the most powerful in the alliance and used
to serve their interests.
> It seems likely that
>without the central European power vacuum caused by the dismemberment
>of
>Austria-Hungary, the occupation of central and eastern Europe by Hitler,
and
>its ultimate enslavement under the USSR, would not have happened.
Possible. But it is also possible that AH would be another Nazi state and it
could be even more terrible then Germany because of so much "Untermensch" in
their borders. My point is: agressions should be stoped, not small peoples
should be reigned by strong "protectors".
>So yes, if the reign was peaceful and decentralized, there was a strong
need
>for this multinational state.
Maybe there even was, but just if it was will of free states to unite in
that multinational state, not "present" from allmighty Germans.
>> About murder being useful to Serbian extremists, it was useful to
Austrian
>> extremists too. So what?
>It was just a tragedy for central- and eastern Europe, that's what. The
main
>point was that, far from an act of heroism, Princip's act was a real
tragedy.
Princip killed one for whom he believed to be opressor and ocupator of his
land. If you ask me, Princip's countryman, he was right.
It was AH that started war and caused tragedy in Europe.
And, are we sure that Princip's deed was reason but no excuse? It is much
more possible if we think about situation in the Europe these days. We are
learning about it in history books even in our primary school.
>> And, Ferdinand was not coming in Bosnia in visit to Bosnian archduke, but
as
>> representative of an repressive and foreign occupational regime.
>> Gavrilo Princip was born in village near Bosansko Grahovo, western
Bosnia.
>> He was not happy about foreigners ruling his country.
>Well, many others did not share his convictions.
Maybe. And maybe not. But if we presume that Serbs, who were majority in
Bosnia at the time, uprised in 1875. to join AH and not to become free,
there would be something bad with our logic. So, we could conclude what
others wanted?
>One of the conspirator's (Ilic? - I'm not sure)
Wouldn't know.
>father hung up an Austrian flag and really hated his
>son's involvement in anti-Hapsburg groups. So what?
So what? You brought it up.
>There were no massive
>revolts or guerrila warfare, like the intifada in Israel or the situation
>against the Turks in Kurdistan. Small groups of conspirators financed and
>armed from abroad are not indicative of a broad desire for independence.
It is very possible that it was wish of the most people in Bosnia. Why else
would gen. Pocorek attack Serbia through Bosnia, why would Croats and
Muslims from Bosnia maltreate local Serbs if they were mostly loyal to
beloved AH homeland?
As for mass guerrila warfare, there was no such thing, but it means nothing.
>> >So Austria was even on this point not worse than its successors
>> To Germans and Hungarians maybe. But Czech, Slovak, Slovenians,
Romanians,
>> Serbs and Croats wouldn't agree. And I think they are one to ask, not
>> Austrians.
>Well....with the exceptions of Serbs the rights of the other nations,
>particularly after the brief "vacation" of the 1920's and early 30's,
>declined precipitously. Austria-Hungary was not as oppressive in 1914 as
>Czechoslovakia and Romania in 1984. Authors such as Kundera were not
>hounded into exile.
I would sound naive if I believe you realy couldn't remember of other
possibility, that peoples that wanted independence from AH did not want
communist dictatorship 30 years later.
Existence of one evil opressive empire is not excuse for existance of
another one. Who guarantees us that AH wouldn't take place of Soviet Union
or Nazi Germany if it existed in 1941. or 1945.? Russia and Germany existed
as empries, you probably would find many nice things in their states if you
try as hard as you are doing it in case of AH.
What is solution is respecting of UN Chapter.
Today we see bearing of another empire who doesn't obey international laws
and principles. After Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, today we have USA.
>> Well, it is probably because of the war Austro-Hungary started.
>Hey - if Milosevic were assassinated by a conspirators armed and helped
>by the Albanian government - would Serbia have the right to invade Albania
>and sort things out? I would say so.
a) Serbia would have to prove this first
b) it is more possible relations of Serbia and Albania would become better
then ever after that.
But as for WW1, as we remember AH intentions about Drang nach Sud, and wish
for rearrangement of the world, it is very suspicious that Ferdinands murder
was real cause of the war.
>> If dividing
>> of AH was done peacefully, it would be better.
>The division was the problem, as I have shown......
It was not. It was result of wishes of subjugated peoples.
>and it was not necessary.
It is not you who have to decide on that.
bab...@netscape.net
"Goran" <bos...@beotel.yu> wrote:
> Peoples of AH sure were dominated by Austrians and Hungarians.
Absolutely - and this was wrong. However, as I (hopefully) have shown, Franz
Ferdinand was very much against this. He was planning to implement changes
in Austria and was prepared to use force in Hungary if the latter (who had a
seperate administration from Austria) refused. I'm not saying F.F. was a
sort of Gandhi - he merely wanted to hold on to what his family had for 600+
years. But he realized that this would be impossible unless his subjects got
something in return - cultural and political autonomy.
........cut........
>
> >The seperatist tendancies of most of the
> >peoples of Austria-Hungary were probably similar to those of French Canada,
> >i.e. considerable but not desperate.
>
> Well, they are still more important then wish of Hapsburgs to rule great
> Empire.
If you recall, roughly 40% (less than majority) of the people of Quebec voted
for independence. Behavior of Masaryk (pre-1915) and others suggests a
similar situation, although I concede no polls or votes on the matter were
taken. One possible indicator, however, was the brave and steadfast
performance of soldiers of different ethnic groups in the A & H army. In
contrast, Ukrainians oppressed in the USSR surrendered en masse during the
initial phase of W.W.II rather than fight for their oppressor (once Germany
turned out to be just as bad this was obviously not the case anymore). Out
of curiosity - how did Croats and other non-Serbs behave when Germany invaded
Yugoslavia?
Most people of A & H behaved not as if they were oppressed people. A & H was
a viable (though troubled) state that needed (and would have gotten)
restructuring; it could have survived if not for the assassination of Franz
Ferdinand and the war that followed.
> And, most peoples is not equal all peoples. What are we going to do with >
other-then-most peoples?
I agree that some problems existed - some Italians were still in A & H, some
Serbs, some Romanians. But it seems to be a detail - not all of Bosnia was
Serb, not all Serbs were anti-Austrian. There are large Hungarian and
Romanian minorities in Yugoslavia today; do you propose changing the borders
there also?
>
> Your insisting on necessarity of AH starts to sound irrational already.
> You can not blame the victim, what I mean, you can not blame i.e.
> Czechoslovakia for being small, weak and independent.
Of course not. I'm only stating that Czechoslovakia would not have been a
victim if it were part of a multinational state. Would Hitler have started a
war against, not only Czech, but also Hungarian, Austrian, Ukrainian etc.
troops in 1938? Now the people of central Europe are doing the right thing -
trying to join the E.U. and NATO as soon as possible. Maybe they've learned
from past mistakes?
> It is Hitler who is
> guilty, and he invaded much bigger and more powerful countries then TCH.
Of course he is guilty....
> If AH was existing in 1941. it is more possible that we would have another
> strong Hitler's ally in a middle of Europe then small peoples would be
> protected.
As I have (again hopefully) have shown, A & H was on the contrary moving in
the opposite direction - toward multinationalism.
> Agressions should never happened, it is much more easy and logical then to
> presume that peoples should be subjugated to powerful empire so they could
> keep their freedom. Existence of such "Empires" is acceptable just in case
> of i.e. EU or NATO, when countries unite by their will. But same as other
> Empires, they can become tool of the most powerful in the alliance and used
> to serve their interests.
I agree. I'm sure that Austrians and Hungarians would have had
proportionately more clout - but in terms of sheer numbers they would have
been unable to dominate like, for example, Russia did in USSR. A & H would
have been somewhat comparable to E.U. (recall that Germany is easily E.U.'s
most populous country, has largest economy, etc.).
> Possible. But it is also possible that AH would be another Nazi state and it
> could be even more terrible then Germany because of so much "Untermensch" in
> their borders.
if you recall, Hitler fled Austria in order to avoid mixing with these
people. Austria was proud of its rich ethnic mixture. In his last speech
Franz Ferdinan even spoke some words in Serbo-Croatian.
BTW, both of his sons ended up as prisoners in German concentration camps.
Also, the Austrians were making plans to realign themselves with Britain.
So, that scenario seems to be quite unlikely.
> My point is: agressions should be stoped, not small peoples
> should be reigned by strong "protectors".
It seems I agree with everything you say, except that our belief in what A & H
was (and more importantly, was becoming!) is different.
> >So yes, if the reign was peaceful and decentralized, there was a strong
> >need for this multinational state.
>
> Maybe there even was, but just if it was will of free states to unite in
> that multinational state, not "present" from allmighty Germans.
Well, they were already united. It was a matter of reorganization...but they
did not seem so desperate to leave.
....cut.....
> >It was just a tragedy for central- and eastern Europe, that's what. The
> main
> >point was that, far from an act of heroism, Princip's act was a real
> tragedy.
>
> Princip killed one for whom he believed to be opressor and ocupator of his
> land. If you ask me, Princip's countryman, he was right.
> It was AH that started war and caused tragedy in Europe.
Again...in retaliation. It had the moral right....
> And, are we sure that Princip's deed was reason but no excuse?
This is quite likely...Franz Ferdinand was a huge counterbalance to the
generals who wanted to "punish" Serbia for supporting B & H's withdrawal from
Austria. With him gone, war became much more likely. But, although making
war was a stupid and horrible mistake, Austria still had the right.
> It is much
> more possible if we think about situation in the Europe these days. We are
> learning about it in history books even in our primary school.
>
.....cut..........
>
> Maybe. And maybe not. But if we presume that Serbs, who were majority in
> Bosnia at the time, uprised in 1875. to join AH and not to become free,
> there would be something bad with our logic. So, we could conclude what
> others wanted?
Well, they never rebelled against Austria.
>
> >One of the conspirator's (Ilic? - I'm not sure)
>
> Wouldn't know.
>
> >father hung up an Austrian flag and really hated his
> >son's involvement in anti-Hapsburg groups. So what?
>
> So what? You brought it up.
It was an example of many in B & H not minding the Austrian government.
> >There were no massive
> >revolts or guerrila warfare, like the intifada in Israel or the situation
> >against the Turks in Kurdistan. Small groups of conspirators financed and
> >armed from abroad are not indicative of a broad desire for independence.
>
> It is very possible that it was wish of the most people in Bosnia. Why else
> would gen. Pocorek attack Serbia through Bosnia, why would Croats and
> Muslims from Bosnia maltreate local Serbs if they were mostly loyal to
> beloved AH homeland?
Good points. But my point was that a significant, if not majority, of the
people of B & H didn't mind the Austrians. What was the composition of B & H
before the Ustashe killed many Serbs? It seems that most Croats and Muslims,
as well as at least a large number of Serbs (such as Ilic's father)weren't
against Austria. Even if 40% of B & H hated Austrians, however, Pocorek's
actions would have been justified militarily.
> As for mass guerrila warfare, there was no such thing, but it means nothing.
It means, that people of B & H weren't so desperate for independence. USSR
fought a bloody war to conquer Ukraine during the Russian civil war; Serbs
under Turkey had numerous revolts against the Turks; Kurds, Timorese, Tamils,
Palestinians, etc. have recently fought their oppressors. But what were the
people of Bosnia doing during the "horrible" 30+ year Austrian occupation?
Perhaps it was not so horrible?
...........cut...................
sorry, out of time....
Babai
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
M|SKAMAN
bab...@netscape.net wrote:
> In article <7bghor$pbb$7...@zevs.beotel.net>,
> "Goran" <bos...@beotel.yu> wrote:
>
> > Peoples of AH sure were dominated by Austrians and Hungarians.
>
> Absolutely - and this was wrong. However, as I (hopefully) have shown, Franz
> Ferdinand was very much against this. He was planning to implement changes
> in Austria and was prepared to use force in Hungary if the latter (who had a
> seperate administration from Austria) refused. I'm not saying F.F. was a
> sort of Gandhi - he merely wanted to hold on to what his family had for 600+
> years. But he realized that this would be impossible unless his subjects got
> something in return - cultural and political autonomy.
>
> ........cut........
600+ years or some 6 years? Bosnia was occupied in 1908.
>
>
> >
> > >The seperatist tendancies of most of the
> > >peoples of Austria-Hungary were probably similar to those of French Canada,
> > >i.e. considerable but not desperate.
> >
> > Well, they are still more important then wish of Hapsburgs to rule great
> > Empire.
>
> how did Croats and other non-Serbs behave when Germany invaded
> Yugoslavia?
Jasenovac extermination camp... Pavlevic... 700000 killed... rings a bell?
> Most people of A & H behaved not as if they were oppressed people. A & H was
> a viable (though troubled) state that needed (and would have gotten)
> restructuring; it could have survived if not for the assassination of Franz
> Ferdinand and the war that followed.
Read Shvejk... Czechs weren't that eager to fight.
> > If AH was existing in 1941. it is more possible that we would have another
> > strong Hitler's ally in a middle of Europe then small peoples would be
> > protected.
>
> As I have (again hopefully) have shown, A & H was on the contrary moving in
> the opposite direction - toward multinationalism.
But still they would have been Hitler's ally.
> > Princip killed one for whom he believed to be opressor and ocupator of his
> > land. If you ask me, Princip's countryman, he was right.
> > It was AH that started war and caused tragedy in Europe.
>
> Again...in retaliation. It had the moral right....
Franz was killed in retaliation. Didn't you know this?
> > And, are we sure that Princip's deed was reason but no excuse?
>
> This is quite likely...Franz Ferdinand was a huge counterbalance to the
> generals who wanted to "punish" Serbia for supporting B & H's withdrawal from
> Austria.
BiH was in Austria? They invaded annexed it!
> It was an example of many in B & H not minding the Austrian government.
So? Many in Croatia weren't minding Pavlevic's "government".
They probbaly did it out of fear. Both cases.
--
Remove REMOVETHIS from return address when replying.
bab...@netscape.net
misk...@beerREMOVETHIS.com wrote:
>
>
> bab...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> > In article <7bghor$pbb$7...@zevs.beotel.net>,
> > "Goran" <bos...@beotel.yu> wrote:
> >
> > > Peoples of AH sure were dominated by Austrians and Hungarians.
> >
> > Absolutely - and this was wrong. However, as I (hopefully) have shown,
Franz
> > Ferdinand was very much against this. He was planning to implement changes
> > in Austria and was prepared to use force in Hungary if the latter (who had a
> > seperate administration from Austria) refused. I'm not saying F.F. was a
> > sort of Gandhi - he merely wanted to hold on to what his family had for 600+
> > years. But he realized that this would be impossible unless his subjects got
> > something in return - cultural and political autonomy.
> >
> > ........cut........
>
I was referring to Hapsburg lands. Austria administered Bosnia, I believe,
from the 1880's. I took it from the Ottoman Empire.
> > how did Croats and other non-Serbs behave when Germany invaded
> > Yugoslavia?
>
> Jasenovac extermination camp... Pavlevic... 700000 killed... rings a bell?
Horrible atrocities. But they do show that Croats weren't too happy with Serb
rule. Why did the peoples of A & H not slaughter the considerable numbers of
German-Austrians among them? Perhaps they did not feel so persecuted?
> > Most people of A & H behaved not as if they were oppressed people. A & H
was
> > a viable (though troubled) state that needed (and would have gotten)
> > restructuring; it could have survived if not for the assassination of Franz
> > Ferdinand and the war that followed.
>
> Read Shvejk... Czechs weren't that eager to fight.
One can also read Remarque, about German soldiers not being too eager. There
is a difference between that and rebellion or mass refusal. Austria invaded
B & H? Where was the resistance? The battles? The Field of the Blackbirds?
There were only a couple of poor wierd students financed and equipped from a
foreign country.
>
> >
> > As I have (again hopefully) have shown, A & H was on the contrary moving in
> > the opposite direction - toward multinationalism.
>
> But still they would have been Hitler's ally.
Very doubtful. Hitler was against *everything* Austria stood for - he hated
it and couldn't wait to get rid of Austrian citizenship. Franz Ferdinand's
two sons were put in concentration camps. When Hitler conquered Austria he
even gave it the derogatory name "Ostermark".
Babai
> > > Princip killed one for whom he believed to be opressor and ocupator of his
> > > land. If you ask me, Princip's countryman, he was right.
> > > It was AH that started war and caused tragedy in Europe.
> >
> > Again...in retaliation. It had the moral right....
>
> Franz was killed in retaliation. Didn't you know this?
> > > And, are we sure that Princip's deed was reason but no excuse?
> >
> > This is quite likely...Franz Ferdinand was a huge counterbalance to the
> > generals who wanted to "punish" Serbia for supporting B & H's withdrawal
from
> > Austria.
>
> BiH was in Austria? They invaded annexed it!
>
> > It was an example of many in B & H not minding the Austrian government.
>
> So? Many in Croatia weren't minding Pavlevic's "government".
> They probbaly did it out of fear. Both cases.
> --
> Remove REMOVETHIS from return address when replying.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Goran
>Absolutely - and this was wrong. However, as I (hopefully) have shown,
Franz
>Ferdinand was very much against this. He was planning to implement changes
>in Austria and was prepared to use force in Hungary if the latter (who had
a
>seperate administration from Austria) refused. I'm not saying F.F. was a
>sort of Gandhi - he merely wanted to hold on to what his family had for
600+
>years. But he realized that this would be impossible unless his subjects
>got something in return - cultural and political autonomy.
a) it is question would he suceed in his intentions.
b) you admitted yourself. He just wanted to keep controll over other peoples
that deserved to be free. Nothing so great about him.
>> >The seperatist tendancies of most of the
>> >peoples of Austria-Hungary were probably similar to those of French
>> >Canada, i.e. considerable but not desperate.
>> Well, they are still more important then wish of Hapsburgs to rule great
>> Empire.
>If you recall, roughly 40% (less than majority) of the people of Quebec
voted
>for independence. Behavior of Masaryk (pre-1915) and others suggests a
>similar situation, although I concede no polls or votes on the matter were
>taken. One possible indicator, however, was the brave and steadfast
>performance of soldiers of different ethnic groups in the A & H army. In
>contrast, Ukrainians oppressed in the USSR surrendered en masse during the
>initial phase of W.W.II rather than fight for their oppressor (once Germany
>turned out to be just as bad this was obviously not the case anymore).
Well, I am mostly not interested in Czech or whoever else. I care about
Serbs. If they wanted, they could stay in AH, I don't care.
>Out
>of curiosity - how did Croats and other non-Serbs behave when Germany
>invaded Yugoslavia?
I bet you know very well.
>Most people of A & H behaved not as if they were oppressed people. A & H
>was
>a viable (though troubled) state that needed (and would have gotten)
>restructuring;
It was still empire ruling peoples that wanted to be free. At least some of
the peoples did.
>it could have survived if not for the assassination of Franz
>Ferdinand and the war that followed.
It shouldn't survive, and it is question would FF be able to do anything,
>> And, most peoples is not equal all peoples. What are we going to do with
>>other-then-most peoples?
>I agree that some problems existed - some Italians were still in A & H,
some
>Serbs, some Romanians. But it seems to be a detail - not all of Bosnia was
>Serb, not all Serbs were anti-Austrian. There are large Hungarian and
>Romanian minorities in Yugoslavia today; do you propose changing the
>borders there also?
You can not compare minorities in present day Europe with subjugated peoples
in one empire.
>> Your insisting on necessarity of AH starts to sound irrational already.
>> You can not blame the victim, what I mean, you can not blame i.e.
>> Czechoslovakia for being small, weak and independent.
>Of course not. I'm only stating that Czechoslovakia would not have been a
>victim if it were part of a multinational state. Would Hitler have started
a
>war against, not only Czech, but also Hungarian, Austrian, Ukrainian etc.
>troops in 1938? Now the people of central Europe are doing the right
thing -
>trying to join the E.U. and NATO as soon as possible. Maybe they've
>learned from past mistakes?
Hitler would. He started war against such empires as Russia, France and
England. And it is very possible that if AH existed they would be his
allies.
>> It is Hitler who is
>> guilty, and he invaded much bigger and more powerful countries then TCH.
>Of course he is guilty....
My point is above.
>> If AH was existing in 1941. it is more possible that we would have
>> another
>> strong Hitler's ally in a middle of Europe then small peoples would be
>> protected.
>As I have (again hopefully) have shown, A & H was on the contrary moving in
>the opposite direction - toward multinationalism.
It's interestes could still be same as German. They wouldn't need to have
Nazi ideology to support Germans, just similar interests. And it is
possible.
>> Agressions should never happened, it is much more easy and logical then
to
>> presume that peoples should be subjugated to powerful empire so they
could
>> keep their freedom. Existence of such "Empires" is acceptable just in
case
>> of i.e. EU or NATO, when countries unite by their will. But same as other
>> Empires, they can become tool of the most powerful in the alliance and
>> used to serve their interests.
>I agree. I'm sure that Austrians and Hungarians would have had
>proportionately more clout - but in terms of sheer numbers they would have
>been unable to dominate like, for example, Russia did in USSR.
I sincerely doubt in this. What would make them stop dominating?
>A & H would
>have been somewhat comparable to E.U. (recall that Germany is easily
>E.U.'s most populous country, has largest economy, etc.).
You fail to see difference between AH and EU. AH was created without wish of
most of it's peoples, and in case of Bosnia, against the will of it's
people.
>> Possible. But it is also possible that AH would be another Nazi state and
>> it could be even more terrible then Germany because of so much
>> "Untermensch" in their borders.
>if you recall, Hitler fled Austria in order to avoid mixing with these
>people. Austria was proud of its rich ethnic mixture.
I am not so sure.
>In his last speech Franz Ferdinan even spoke some words in Serbo-Croatian.
Nice thing meaning nothing. Pope says something in hundred languages every
Christmass. He needed to look like nice master to his Slavic slaves.
>BTW, both of his sons ended up as prisoners in German concentration
>camps.
Yeah? Didn't know this.
>Also, the Austrians were making plans to realign themselves with Britain.
>So, that scenario seems to be quite unlikely.
When was that?
>> My point is: agressions should be stoped, not small peoples
>> should be reigned by strong "protectors".
>It seems I agree with everything you say, except that our belief in what A
>& H was (and more importantly, was becoming!) is different.
Even if you have some ideas what it was becoming, but I think we both know
what it was - bicephal monarchy (I guess word is ok) with bunch of
subjugated peoples and interests to expand.
>> >So yes, if the reign was peaceful and decentralized, there was a strong
>> >need for this multinational state.
>> Maybe there even was, but just if it was will of free states to unite in
>> that multinational state, not "present" from allmighty Germans.
>Well, they were already united. It was a matter of reorganization...but
>they did not seem so desperate to leave.
They was not united, they was conquered.
>> >It was just a tragedy for central- and eastern Europe, that's what. The
>> main
>> >point was that, far from an act of heroism, Princip's act was a real
>> tragedy.
>> Princip killed one for whom he believed to be opressor and ocupator of
his
>> land. If you ask me, Princip's countryman, he was right.
>> It was AH that started war and caused tragedy in Europe.
>Again...in retaliation. It had the moral right....
It had no proofs and I am almost sure it was just excuse. Austria was
empire, it had interests with it's neighbours.
>> And, are we sure that Princip's deed was reason but no excuse?
>This is quite likely...Franz Ferdinand was a huge counterbalance to the
>generals who wanted to "punish" Serbia for supporting B & H's withdrawal
>from Austria. With him gone, war became much more likely.
Well, I wonder if FF wasn't killed, how much would it took to AH rulers to
find another excuse.
>But, although making
>war was a stupid and horrible mistake, Austria still had the right.
Nothing similar.
>> Maybe. And maybe not. But if we presume that Serbs, who were majority in
>> Bosnia at the time, uprised in 1875. to join AH and not to become free,
>> there would be something bad with our logic. So, we could conclude what
>> others wanted?
>Well, they never rebelled against Austria.
Rebellion needs serious preparations. Such preparations are often not made
unless there is some chance to their success. AH was strong country. I
believe it is main reason for not starting rebellion, but there was
anti-Austrian feeling in people. I know, my grand grand mother was killed by
Schutzkore.
>> >One of the conspirator's (Ilic? - I'm not sure)
>> >father hung up an Austrian flag and really hated his
>> >son's involvement in anti-Hapsburg groups. So what?
>> So what? You brought it up.
>It was an example of many in B & H not minding the Austrian government.
It was example of one Bosnian.
>> It is very possible that it was wish of the most people in Bosnia. Why
else
>> would gen. Pocorek attack Serbia through Bosnia, why would Croats and
>> Muslims from Bosnia maltreate local Serbs if they were mostly loyal to
>> beloved AH homeland?
>Good points. But my point was that a significant, if not majority, of the
>people of B & H didn't mind the Austrians.
Blah. Great majority of population of Bosnia were Serbs. I am sure that at
least 95% of them prefered Serbia then AH. And you had South Slav movement
(Yugoslav), many Bosnian Muslims still considered themselves as Serbs or at
least South Slavs..... hm. I doubt.
>What was the composition of B & H before the Ustashe killed many Serbs?
Well, in 1914., according to Austrian data it was like this: Orthodox
930,000
Moslem 620,000
Catholic 420,000
Serbs were Orthodox, noone else was. Also number of Muslims anc Catholic
were Serbs by ethnicity, although in process of assimilation in Croats.
And, this might be a bit incorrect because AH was antiSerbian. So, maybe
there were even more Orthodox.
>It seems that most Croats and Muslims,
>as well as at least a large number of Serbs (such as Ilic's father)weren't
>against Austria. Even if 40% of B & H hated Austrians, however, Pocorek's
>actions would have been justified militarily.
Ilic's father is probably an shameful exception or just man of honour that
disliked such actions as killing a Archduke. But I doubt there were much
people like him among Bosnian Serbs, and maybe even other Bosnians.
>> As for mass guerrila warfare, there was no such thing, but it means
>> nothing.
>It means, that people of B & H weren't so desperate for independence.
Rebellion had no chance for success, I believe that is main reason why it
did not happen.
>USSR
>fought a bloody war to conquer Ukraine during the Russian civil war; Serbs
>under Turkey had numerous revolts against the Turks; Kurds, Timorese,
Tamils,
>Palestinians, etc. have recently fought their oppressors. But what were
the
>people of Bosnia doing during the "horrible" 30+ year Austrian occupation?
>Perhaps it was not so horrible?
Probably it was not. But it was still occupation. Without any God damn
reason for it's existance.
>...........cut...................
>
>sorry, out of time....
>Babai
Next time maybe.
Goran
>Horrible atrocities. But they do show that Croats weren't too happy with
Serb
>rule. Why did the peoples of A & H not slaughter the considerable numbers
of
>German-Austrians among them? Perhaps they did not feel so persecuted?
Perhaps they weren't:
a) in charge
b) foreigners' puppets
c) had no Nazi ideology
d) did not need to eliminate great number of Serbs to create their national
state
bab...@netscape.net
"Goran" <bos...@beotel.yu> wrote:
> > I'm not saying F.F. was a
> >sort of Gandhi - he merely wanted to hold on to what his family had for
> 600+
> >years. But he realized that this would be impossible unless his subjects
>
> >got something in return - cultural and political autonomy.
>
> a) it is question would he suceed in his intentions.
Of course, we will never know. But he would have been the Emperor - so
probably the chances would have been good that he would have extended the
rights of Slavs and that there would have been no invasion of Serbia (F.F.
strongly opposed this, as I documented in a previous post). In fact, when
Franz Josef fell ill in 1914, the "pro-punish Serbia" element of the Austrian
government (chief among them the chief of staff Conrad) prepared their
resignations (in order to keep their pensions) in anticipation of Franz
Ferdinand's ascension. So, it would have been the likely scenario.
> b) you admitted yourself. He just wanted to keep controll over other peoples
> that deserved to be free. Nothing so great about him.
You misunderstood me. He did not want to "control other peoples" - he
wanted to keep his job as Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary etc. etc.
This did not imply a suppression of these people's cultural or
political rights.
>
> Well, I am mostly not interested in Czech or whoever else. I care about
> Serbs. If they wanted, they could stay in AH, I don't care.
Ok. But did Serbs have the right to decide for everyone in B & H?
Franz Ferdinand himself was categorically against the invasion of Serbia,
because he knew that the people there would never be reconciled to
an Austrian regime. The situation in B & H was could go either way - one
reason why F.F. planned to dramatically increase the rights of the Slavs.
B & H seemed to be similar to Quebec that way.
>
> >Out
> >of curiosity - how did Croats and other non-Serbs behave when Germany
> >invaded Yugoslavia?
>
> I bet you know very well.
They behaved like oppressed people becoming horribly extreme - a
large-scale version of Palestinians machine-gunning Israeli buses.
Slavs in A & H didn't act this way because, um, they weren't really
oppressed? There were German communities in Czechia and Romania who
were relatively undisturbed until W.W.II.
> > A & H was a viable (though troubled) state that needed (and would have > >
gotten)restructuring;
>
> It was still empire ruling peoples that wanted to be free. At least some of
> the peoples did.
That's kind of questionable....was there a referendum about it?
Again, it seems to have been a Quebec-like "wanting to be free" - that
with the proper leadership the multinational state would have existed.
>
> >it could have survived if not for the assassination of Franz
> >Ferdinand and the war that followed.
>
> It shouldn't survive, and it is question would FF be able to do anything,
See my comments above.
> > There are large Hungarian and
> >Romanian minorities in Yugoslavia today; do you propose changing the
> >borders there also?
>
> You can not compare minorities in present day Europe with subjugated peoples
> in one empire.
Please explain the difference between the situation of Hungarians or other
minorities in Yugoslavia and those in A & H. I can tell you that
Ukrainians, at least, are in a *far* *far* worse condition.
........cut.............
> And it is very possible that if AH existed they would be his [Hitler's]
> allies.
Almost impossible. Nazism was essentially, ideologically opposed to
everything Austria stood for. Hitler fled Austria so that he wouldn't
have to live among non-Germans. Hitler would have tried to dismember
Austria.
............cut..............
>
> It's interestes could still be same as German. They wouldn't need to have
> Nazi ideology to support Germans, just similar interests. And it is
> possible.
Everything is possible....for a small time Hitler even had a deal with
Stalin. But it would have been most unlikely.
> >I agree. I'm sure that Austrians and Hungarians would have had
> >proportionately more clout - but in terms of sheer numbers they would have
> >been unable to dominate like, for example, Russia did in USSR.
>
> I sincerely doubt in this. What would make them stop dominating?
Population. If Austria-Hungary didn't change (as F.F. wanted it to)
it would have fallen apart, like Turkey. F.F. knew this - which was why
he wanted to restructure the country.
>
> >A & H would
> >have been somewhat comparable to E.U. (recall that Germany is easily
> >E.U.'s most populous country, has largest economy, etc.).
>
> You fail to see difference between AH and EU. AH was created without wish of
> most of it's peoples, and in case of Bosnia, against the will of it's
> people.
What about people deciding to stay together? It was not impossible.
And the situation of Bosnia is not totally clear....
.........cut.............
>
> >Also, the Austrians were making plans to realign themselves with Britain.
> >So, that scenario seems to be quite unlikely.
>
> When was that?
Sorry, I no longer have that info. I do know that Franz Ferdinand had
planned a hunt with England's king George in fall of 1914. In 1917
Austria had agreed to leave the war, recognize France's claim to Alscasce
Loraine, etc. - but refused when it was forced to give up territory to
Italy.
..............cut...............
>
> Even if you have some ideas what it was becoming, but I think we both know
> what it was - bicephal monarchy (I guess word is ok) with bunch of
> subjugated peoples and interests to expand.
Perhaps. Franz Ferdinand had concrete plans of changing it from a dual
to a triple monarcy - with Slavs being the third component. Its
structure was to be federal.
..........cut.............
> >This is quite likely...Franz Ferdinand was a huge counterbalance to the
> >generals who wanted to "punish" Serbia for supporting B & H's withdrawal
> >from Austria. With him gone, war became much more likely.
>
> Well, I wonder if FF wasn't killed, how much would it took to AH rulers to
> find another excuse.
They never would. Prior to his murder, Franz Ferdinand convinced the
German Emperor to push for keeping peace with Serbia. The pro-war forces
could not have succeeded with Franz Ferdinand's constant opposition - he
was the crown prince! As long as Franz Ferdinand was alive there would
have been no invasion of Serbia and, thus, no world war.
> >But, although making
> >war was a stupid and horrible mistake, Austria still had the right.
>
> Nothing similar.
Serbia refused Austria's demand to have its own police look for the
conspirators in Serbia. Although the link between Princip and the Serb
government was not established until after the war, Austria had a
reasonable idea that there was Serbian governmental involvment. So, then,
it was reasonable to conclude that a Serb-only investigation could have
been likely. Austria's demands were harsh but not unfair. They were
stupid politically, of course....Austria should have accepted the
compromise.
......cut..........
>
> Rebellion needs serious preparations. Such preparations are often not made
> unless there is some chance to their success. AH was strong country. I
> believe it is main reason for not starting rebellion, but there was
> anti-Austrian feeling in people. I know, my grand grand mother was killed by
> Schutzkore.
I'm sorry about your great-grandmother. But, seriously, do you think that
Kurds, Palestinians, and especially Timorese have a chance of success
against their respective powerful oppresors? What about some
American colonists against the powerful British Empire? The slavs of
Bosnia had Serbia next door, as well as a sympathetic Russia....
>
> >> >One of the conspirator's (Ilic? - I'm not sure)
> >> >father hung up an Austrian flag and really hated his
> >> >son's involvement in anti-Hapsburg groups. So what?
> >> So what? You brought it up.
> >It was an example of many in B & H not minding the Austrian government.
>
> It was example of one Bosnian.
So was Princip.
>
> Blah. Great majority of population of Bosnia were Serbs. I am sure that at
> least 95% of them prefered Serbia then AH. And you had South Slav movement
> (Yugoslav), many Bosnian Muslims still considered themselves as Serbs or at
> least South Slavs..... hm. I doubt.
There is nothing to suggest their opinions were not stronger than the ones
found in Quebec.
>
> >What was the composition of B & H before the Ustashe killed many Serbs?
>
> Well, in 1914., according to Austrian data it was like this: Orthodox
> 930,000
> Moslem 620,000
> Catholic 420,000
> Serbs were Orthodox, noone else was. Also number of Muslims anc Catholic
> were Serbs by ethnicity, although in process of assimilation in Croats.
> And, this might be a bit incorrect because AH was antiSerbian. So, maybe
> there were even more Orthodox.
Certainly not a huge majority.....
Babai
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Goran
>> >sort of Gandhi - he merely wanted to hold on to what his family had for
>> 600+
>> >years. But he realized that this would be impossible unless his subjects
>> >got something in return - cultural and political autonomy.
>> a) it is question would he suceed in his intentions.
>Of course, we will never know. But he would have been the Emperor - so
>probably the chances would have been good that he would have extended the
>rights of Slavs and that there would have been no invasion of Serbia (F.F.
>strongly opposed this, as I documented in a previous post). In fact, when
>Franz Josef fell ill in 1914, the "pro-punish Serbia" element of the
Austrian
>government (chief among them the chief of staff Conrad) prepared their
>resignations (in order to keep their pensions) in anticipation of Franz
>Ferdinand's ascension. So, it would have been the likely scenario.
It would. But it is still second best choice. The best one is freedom for
the subjugated peoples then enlightened rule of foreign Emperors.
>> b) you admitted yourself. He just wanted to keep controll over other
peoples
>> that deserved to be free. Nothing so great about him.
>You misunderstood me. He did not want to "control other peoples" - he
>wanted to keep his job as Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary etc. etc.
>This did not imply a suppression of these people's cultural or
>political rights.
It implied not existing of freedom for peoples that had no wish or reason to
be subjugated. It implied illegal Austrian rule over Bosnia i.e.
I see no reason for such things to exist.
>> Well, I am mostly not interested in Czech or whoever else. I care about
>> Serbs. If they wanted, they could stay in AH, I don't care.
>Ok. But did Serbs have the right to decide for everyone in B & H?
As majority, they had right to decide much more then Austrian conquerors and
thiefs because they stoll Bosnia.
>Franz Ferdinand himself was categorically against the invasion of Serbia,
>because he knew that the people there would never be reconciled to
>an Austrian regime. The situation in B & H was could go either way - one
>reason why F.F. planned to dramatically increase the rights of the Slavs.
>B & H seemed to be similar to Quebec that way.
Whatever. I have no reason for BiH to be under Austria whatsoever.
>> >Out
>> >of curiosity - how did Croats and other non-Serbs behave when Germany
>> >invaded Yugoslavia?
>> I bet you know very well.
>They behaved like oppressed people becoming horribly extreme - a
>large-scale version of Palestinians machine-gunning Israeli buses.
And maybe they were manipulated as well. National hatred in Balkans can
serve well to those who know how to use it.
>Slavs in A & H didn't act this way because, um, they weren't really
>oppressed?
...too much. Still, enlightenend reign of foreigners... I see no need for
that instead of rule of domicil people.
>There were German communities in Czechia and Romania who
>were relatively undisturbed until W.W.II.
Yep, they showed their face in WW2 I guess.
>> > A & H was a viable (though troubled) state that needed (and would have
>> >gotten)restructuring;
>> It was still empire ruling peoples that wanted to be free. At least some
of
>> the peoples did.
>That's kind of questionable....was there a referendum about it?
Great. Was there any referendum about joining AH? Do you think Bosnian Serbs
wanted to join AH when they uprised against Turkey in 1875.? Do you think
Bosnian Muslims wanted to join Austria when they uprised against Austrians
in 1878.?
>Again, it seems to have been a Quebec-like "wanting to be free" - that
>with the proper leadership the multinational state would have existed.
You can not compare colonies with Europe. Bosnians were conquered by AH.
>> > There are large Hungarian and
>> >Romanian minorities in Yugoslavia today; do you propose changing the
>> >borders there also?
>> You can not compare minorities in present day Europe with subjugated
>> peoples in one empire.
>Please explain the difference between the situation of Hungarians or other
>minorities in Yugoslavia and those in A & H. I can tell you that
>Ukrainians, at least, are in a *far* *far* worse condition.
What is so wrong with Ukrainians in Yugoslavia?
What is the difference between present day European minorities and
subjugated peoples in AH? Well, for instance, minorities had to live in
foreign countries so borders could be drawn easily, peace could be
estabilished etc. and AH was ruling peoples that had right to be free and
that had no country of their own.
>> And it is very possible that if AH existed they would be his [Hitler's]
>> allies.
>Almost impossible. Nazism was essentially, ideologically opposed to
>everything Austria stood for. Hitler fled Austria so that he wouldn't
>have to live among non-Germans. Hitler would have tried to dismember
>Austria.
Very possible. USA and UK were allies with USSR. Just remember how their
ideologies were oposite. And they didn't mind.
If Austria was strong, Hitler would not try to dismember it but to Ally with
them.
>> It's interestes could still be same as German. They wouldn't need to have
>> Nazi ideology to support Germans, just similar interests. And it is
>> possible.
>Everything is possible....for a small time Hitler even had a deal with
>Stalin. But it would have been most unlikely.
Don't agree.
>> >I agree. I'm sure that Austrians and Hungarians would have had
>> >proportionately more clout - but in terms of sheer numbers they would
have
>> >been unable to dominate like, for example, Russia did in USSR.
>> I sincerely doubt in this. What would make them stop dominating?
>Population. If Austria-Hungary didn't change (as F.F. wanted it to)
>it would have fallen apart, like Turkey. F.F. knew this - which was why
>he wanted to restructure the country.
And what would be the way to restructure the country? Triple monarchy you
are mentioning down?
Besides, still, freedom is better then rule of ocupators no matter how nice
they are.
>> >A & H would
>> >have been somewhat comparable to E.U. (recall that Germany is easily
>> >E.U.'s most populous country, has largest economy, etc.).
>> You fail to see difference between AH and EU. AH was created without
>> wish of most of it's peoples, and in case of Bosnia, against the will of
it's
>> people.
>What about people deciding to stay together? It was not impossible.
Well, they had chance in 1918. to unite again. They did not.
>And the situation of Bosnia is not totally clear....
But Austrian illegal anexion of Bosnia in 1908. is totally clear. They had
no right to do that even if they would govern it very nicely as good
masters.
>> >Also, the Austrians were making plans to realign themselves with
Britain.
>> >So, that scenario seems to be quite unlikely.
>> When was that?
>Sorry, I no longer have that info. I do know that Franz Ferdinand had
>planned a hunt with England's king George in fall of 1914.
Big deal. This Emperors did not cared about ordinary people. They cared more
about their royal relative in enemy country then for a division of it's
army. Like Kaiser Wilhelm, playing tennis and waving to the troops, "Macht
brav", and playing tennis while they were dying in western front.
>In 1917
>Austria had agreed to leave the war, recognize France's claim to Alscasce
>Loraine, etc. - but refused when it was forced to give up territory to
>Italy.
Possible, but I am not sure about their motives in 1917.
>> Even if you have some ideas what it was becoming, but I think we both
know
>> what it was - bicephal monarchy (I guess word is ok) with bunch of
>> subjugated peoples and interests to expand.
>Perhaps. Franz Ferdinand had concrete plans of changing it from a dual
>to a triple monarcy - with Slavs being the third component. Its
>structure was to be federal.
Triple monarchy is, pardon me, bullshit.
It would be possible if Austria's main peoples were Hungarians, Austrians
and i.e. Czech. But it was not like that. Slavs were not one people but
whole bunch of peoples, Serbs, Croats, Czezh, Slovak, Ukrainians, Poles.....
how the heck should triple monarchy be installed? Blah.
>> >This is quite likely...Franz Ferdinand was a huge counterbalance to the
>> >generals who wanted to "punish" Serbia for supporting B & H's withdrawal
>> >from Austria. With him gone, war became much more likely.
>> Well, I wonder if FF wasn't killed, how much would it took to AH rulers
to
>> find another excuse.
>They never would. Prior to his murder, Franz Ferdinand convinced the
>German Emperor to push for keeping peace with Serbia. The pro-war forces
>could not have succeeded with Franz Ferdinand's constant opposition - he
>was the crown prince! As long as Franz Ferdinand was alive there would
>have been no invasion of Serbia and, thus, no world war.
I was taught in school long time ago that Austria and Germany started Great
war because of wish for new balance in the world, new divide of the colonies
etc. etc. But you assure me that real reason was just because AH attacked
Serbia? I sincerely doubt.
>> >But, although making
>> >war was a stupid and horrible mistake, Austria still had the right.
>> Nothing similar.
>Serbia refused Austria's demand to have its own police look for the
>conspirators in Serbia.
Serbia had every right to do so.
>Although the link between Princip and the Serb
>government was not established until after the war, Austria had a
>reasonable idea that there was Serbian governmental involvment.
Their reasonable idea was their problem only. Their citizen killed their
Archduke.
>So, then,
>it was reasonable to conclude that a Serb-only investigation could have
>been likely. Austria's demands were harsh but not unfair. They were
>stupid politically, of course....Austria should have accepted the
>compromise.
They were unacceptable for an independent country. Austria knew it. I am
sure these demands was just excuse. You think eagles in Vienna would be
satisfied with several policemen going to Serbia? That would be punishment
good enough? I doubt.
>> Rebellion needs serious preparations. Such preparations are often not
made
>> unless there is some chance to their success. AH was strong country. I
>> believe it is main reason for not starting rebellion, but there was
>> anti-Austrian feeling in people. I know, my grand grand mother was killed
by
>> Schutzkore.
>I'm sorry about your great-grandmother.
I bet she was greate danger for the monarchy.
>But, seriously, do you think that
>Kurds, Palestinians, and especially Timorese have a chance of success
>against their respective powerful oppresors?
>What about some American colonists against the powerful British Empire?
1000 km away....
>The slavs of Bosnia had Serbia next door, as well as a sympathetic
Russia....
And powerful modern police state against them sitting on their necks. I am
sure Bosnian Slavs could uprise if they were supported by Serbia and Russia.
But they weren't and without this help, they could do nothing. I.e.
Montenegro started war in I think 1860. against Turks without backup of
Russia, and they were almost anihilated by Osman-pasa.
Their life was not so bad so they had to uprise and they had no support for
uprising.
>> >> >One of the conspirator's (Ilic? - I'm not sure)
>> >> >father hung up an Austrian flag and really hated his
>> >> >son's involvement in anti-Hapsburg groups. So what?
>> >> So what? You brought it up.
>> >It was an example of many in B & H not minding the Austrian government.
>> It was example of one Bosnian.
>So was Princip.
We can only guess who was real representative of Bosnia.
>> Blah. Great majority of population of Bosnia were Serbs. I am sure that
at
>> least 95% of them prefered Serbia then AH. And you had South Slav
>> movement (Yugoslav), many Bosnian Muslims still considered themselves
>> as Serbs or at least South Slavs..... hm. I doubt.
>There is nothing to suggest their opinions were not stronger than the ones
>found in Quebec.
It is not good comparation. Quebec 1999. and Bosnia 1914. You can not
measure those times by today's measures.
>> >What was the composition of B & H before the Ustashe killed many
>> >Serbs?
>> Well, in 1914., according to Austrian data it was like this: Orthodox
>> 930,000
>> Moslem 620,000
>> Catholic 420,000
>> Serbs were Orthodox, noone else was. Also number of Muslims anc Catholic
>> were Serbs by ethnicity, although in process of assimilation in Croats.
>> And, this might be a bit incorrect because AH was antiSerbian. So, maybe
>> there were even more Orthodox.
>Certainly not a huge majority.....
Certainly huger then number of Germans or Hungarians.
bab...@netscape.net
"Goran" <bos...@beotel.yu> wrote:
> >In fact, when Franz Josef fell ill in 1914, the "pro-punish Serbia" element
> >of the Austrian
> >government (chief among them the chief of staff Conrad) prepared their
> >resignations (in order to keep their pensions) in anticipation of Franz
> >Ferdinand's ascension. So, it would have been the likely scenario.
>
> It would. But it is still second best choice. The best one is freedom for
> the subjugated peoples then enlightened rule of foreign Emperors.
I guess I fail to see the contradiction between freedom and "enlightened
rule". Why can these not coexist? I agree that in a perfect world A & H
would have been unnecessary...but it was not a perfect world (more on this
later)
......cut.......
>
> >Slavs in A & H didn't act this way because, um, they weren't really
> >oppressed?
>
> ...too much. Still, enlightenend reign of foreigners... I see no need for
> that instead of rule of domicil people.
I agree that ideally A & H would have been unnecessary (same for NATO).
However, unfortunately, the small nations of central Europe were surrounded
by aggressive and hungry Powers - Turkey, Germany, Russia. Alone, they could
not (and did not) survive independantly. Yugoslavia, with Tito, was lucky in
this regard. Czechs, Hungarians, Slovaks, Ukrainians, etc. were not. As long
as A & H had equality (and as I have hopefully shown, it had relative to
Russia, Turkey, and other empires, and was in the process of being on modern
standards) there was indeed such a need.
The action of Princip was tragic because it robbed A & H of a necessary agent
of attaining the proper goal. It robbed east and central Europe of a future:
the result was German, then USSR-Russian domination. Rather than
participation in government in Vienna (and local self-rule) it was orders, or
tanks, from Berlin or Moscow.
>
> >There were German communities in Czechia and Romania who
> >were relatively undisturbed until W.W.II.
>
> Yep, they showed their face in WW2 I guess.
I think that you have unwittingly shown a true point. Under Austria there was
decency and not animosity. Under the successor caused by Austria's downfall
brutality took the stage.
> >That's kind of questionable....was there a referendum about it?
>
> Great. Was there any referendum about joining AH? Do you think Bosnian Serbs
> wanted to join AH when they uprised against Turkey in 1875.? Do you think
> Bosnian Muslims wanted to join Austria when they uprised against Austrians
> in 1878.?
Could you please write more about those events? I was under the impression
that Austria merely took over from Turkey, i.e. they did not invade an
independant state. Perhaps I am mistaken?
........cut..........
> >Please explain the difference between the situation of Hungarians or other
> >minorities in Yugoslavia and those in A & H. I can tell you that
> >Ukrainians, at least, are in a *far* *far* worse condition.
>
> What is so wrong with Ukrainians in Yugoslavia?
I will address this, in detail, in another post.
> What is the difference between present day European minorities and
> subjugated peoples in AH? Well, for instance, minorities had to live in
> foreign countries so borders could be drawn easily, peace could be
> estabilished etc. and AH was ruling peoples that had right to be free and
> that had no country of their own.
As I have said, Franz Ferdinand wanted A & H to be a "country of their own".
The alternatives, as I hopefully have shwon, have proven to be failures.
Babai
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
bab...@netscape.net
In article <7bog1n$2u4$1...@zevs.beotel.net>,
"Goran" <bos...@beotel.yu> wrote:
>
> What is so wrong with Ukrainians in Yugoslavia?
Ukrainians have lived in Yugoslavia since 1745; their largest town,
Ruski Krstur, is in Vojvodina. There were also large concentrations of
them in Bosnia and Vukuvar. Serb troops destroyed Vukuvar, the center of
Ukrainian life in the former Yugoslavia. Vasylii Sikorsky, president of
the Union of Ruthenians-Ukrainians in Croatia, noted that Ukrainians and
Ruthenians have experienced beatiungs, looting, food shortages, and
pressure to abandon their homes. Deported Ukrainians and Ruthenians have
also reported murder and torture at the hands of the Serb army. Ukrainian
churches, monasteries and schools in the area of Vukovar, Petrovci (out of
1200 Ukrainian-Ruthenians, 961 were exiled) and Miklusevci were
systematically destroyed. Bishop Slavomyr Miklovsch of the Ukrainian
Catholic Church has reported these atrocities and destruction more fully.
In Bosnia Ukrainians, who settled primarily in Derventa, Prnjavor (of 900
Ukrainians living in this area, over 500 have been killed), and
Banja Luka were forcibly conscripted into the Serbian army. 80% of the
men did so - the cost of not doing so was torture and murder. Refugees have
reported that national minorities were forced to remain in
the front line of combat and were followed by Serb troops who would
shoot those who disobeyed orders.
Explosives planted in the Ukrainian churches of Prnjavor and Banja Luka
destroyed them.
When activists within the Union of Ruthenians-Ukrainians in Yugoslavia
(in Vojvodina) protested these actions, they were repressed by Serb
authorities.
In May 1993 the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry denounced the brutal abuses
done by Serbs against ethnic Ukrainians. It reported that hundreds of
them were found in concentration camps and that libraries, churches,
schools, and many individual homes were destroyed.
They are now keeping somewhat of a low profile because they fear that
continued pressure may bring about repurcussions in the relatively
unscathed Ukrainian communities in Vojvodina.
So much for Serbs supporting "Slavic brotherhood".
I doubt that Austria was even close to Serbia in terms of its cruelty.
If this is how "modern Europe" treats minorities one can only conclude
that Austria was far more tolerant.
The information here has been taken from Ameryka, the Ukrainian Weekly,
Svoboda - and numerous personal accounts.
Offical records showed 36,098 Ukrainians in the former Yugoslavia
(church records indicated as many as 45,000). That number has now
been dramatically "cleansed".
Do not infer this as an attack upon yourself or any other individual
Serb. I believe that nations, as human systems, can be ascribed human
characteristics, i.e. Serbia or Russia are "brutal", Serbs in this case
are vicious, fanatical and cruel. But I am talking about the collective
here. An individual Serb is as much to blame (unless he is an active
participant) for this as is, for example, an individual neuron or other
cell of a person who has committed a crime.
Babai
Goran
Veliki Srbin te posmatra!
bab...@netscape.net wrote in message <7bpb7u$6u7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <7bog1n$2u4$1...@zevs.beotel.net>,
> "Goran" <bos...@beotel.yu> wrote:
>> It would. But it is still second best choice. The best one is freedom for
>> the subjugated peoples then enlightened rule of foreign Emperors.
>I guess I fail to see the contradiction between freedom and "enlightened
>rule". Why can these not coexist?
Because it is not freedom if something you ought to have has to be given to
you by an foreign ruler.
>I agree that in a perfect world A & H
>would have been unnecessary...but it was not a perfect world (more on this
>later)
Well, I am sure world and Empires were even more perfect in the past, but
changhes are what made this world more perfect.
>> >Slavs in A & H didn't act this way because, um, they weren't really
>> >oppressed?
>> ...too much. Still, enlightenend reign of foreigners... I see no need for
>> that instead of rule of domicil people.
>I agree that ideally A & H would have been unnecessary (same for NATO).
>However, unfortunately, the small nations of central Europe were surrounded
>by aggressive and hungry Powers - Turkey, Germany, Russia.
And conquered by Austria. AH was the same as other hungry powers.
>Alone, they could not (and did not) survive independantly.
Present map of Europe shows us that you are wrong.
And such things as i.e. Balkan wars in which Turkey was defeated by small
nations of southern Europe are another proof that you are wrong.
>Yugoslavia, with Tito, was lucky in
>this regard. Czechs, Hungarians, Slovaks, Ukrainians, etc. were not. As
long
>as A & H had equality (and as I have hopefully shown, it had relative to
>Russia, Turkey, and other empires, and was in the process of being on
>modern standards) there was indeed such a need.
As I already said few times, AH was just another of those Empireas as Russia
or Germany and it is question how would it evolve anyway, in some German
like Nazi state or regionalization would be replaced by desintegration.
But no matter what of this would happen, freedom of European nations was
better choice then any foreign Empire.
>The action of Princip was tragic because it robbed A & H of a necessary
>agent
>of attaining the proper goal. It robbed east and central Europe of a
future:
>the result was German, then USSR-Russian domination. Rather than
>participation in government in Vienna (and local self-rule) it was orders,
or
>tanks, from Berlin or Moscow.
Princip did not start WW1 but Austria did.
As for future, we do not know in what way Austria would develop further. It
is just your bias presumption that it would be better under AH then USSR.
Yes, they wanted to democratize their state, ok, possible, but who can
guarantee it would last long enough. Hitler won elections too in democratic
state.
Freedom is always better then being ruled.
USSR domination should not appear, but also AH should not exist further. You
can not justify one evil by another.
>> >There were German communities in Czechia and Romania who
>> >were relatively undisturbed until W.W.II.
>> Yep, they showed their face in WW2 I guess.
>I think that you have unwittingly shown a true point. Under Austria there
was
>decency and not animosity. Under the successor caused by Austria's
>downfall brutality took the stage.
I was talking about German communities.
If you are too, well, it is possible they would be no so brutal if they were
still ruling over Czech and Romanians.
Great choice. Be ruled or feel our anger.
>> >That's kind of questionable....was there a referendum about it?
>>
>> Great. Was there any referendum about joining AH? Do you think Bosnian
Serbs
>> wanted to join AH when they uprised against Turkey in 1875.? Do you think
>> Bosnian Muslims wanted to join Austria when they uprised against
Austrians
>> in 1878.?
>Could you please write more about those events? I was under the impression
>that Austria merely took over from Turkey, i.e. they did not invade an
>independant state. Perhaps I am mistaken?
No, you are not, they did took over from Turkey. It was agreed in Berlin
kongress for them to occupy Bosnia to "secure peace and order" or smthg like
this.
Turksih army retreat but they left number of arms to local Muslims who
opposed to Austria as they could. Ofcourse, they could not do anything of
significance. In 1908. Austria declared Bosnia to be part of AH, without any
right.
>> What is the difference between present day European minorities and
>> subjugated peoples in AH? Well, for instance, minorities had to live in
>> foreign countries so borders could be drawn easily, peace could be
>> estabilished etc. and AH was ruling peoples that had right to be free and
>> that had no country of their own.
>As I have said, Franz Ferdinand wanted A & H to be a "country of their
>own".
As I stated many times already, it was not enough.
>The alternatives, as I hopefully have shwon, have proven to be failures.
If we look in present day Europe we could say you are wrong.
Goran
Veliki Srbin te posmatra!
>Here is the promised information (I've made it a separate post):
Ok.
>> What is so wrong with Ukrainians in Yugoslavia?
>Ukrainians have lived in Yugoslavia since 1745; their largest town,
>Ruski Krstur, is in Vojvodina.
There was no Yugoslavia previous to 1918.
>There were also large concentrations of
>them in Bosnia and Vukuvar.
It's Vukovar.
>Serb troops destroyed Vukuvar, the center of
>Ukrainian life in the former Yugoslavia.
It was not Serb troops but federal Yugoslav army that was shelling city that
was controlled by rebells. It had nothing to do with Ukrainians.
>Vasylii Sikorsky, president of
>the Union of Ruthenians-Ukrainians in Croatia, noted that Ukrainians and
>Ruthenians have experienced beatiungs, looting, food shortages, and
>pressure to abandon their homes.
I bet this Union in helped by budget of Croatia, and bias towards Serbs.
Probably their site was in Zagreb or some other Croat controlled part of
Croatia?
>Deported Ukrainians and Ruthenians have
>also reported murder and torture at the hands of the Serb army.
a) it was not Serbian army
b) I can not approach to these information other then rummors.
>Ukrainian
>churches, monasteries and schools in the area of Vukovar, Petrovci (out of
>1200 Ukrainian-Ruthenians, 961 were exiled) and Miklusevci were
>systematically destroyed. Bishop Slavomyr Miklovsch of the Ukrainian
>Catholic Church has reported these atrocities and destruction more fully.
Many nationalities lived in Eastern Slavonia and Baranja during the war.
This all aerea is outside of Serbia, so you can not claim that these
treatments are deeds of Serbia but most probably local Serbs.
Since Ukrainians you are refering to are Catholic, they probably took Croat
side during the war and therefore decided to share their destiny. It is
common in Balkans that nations cooperate according to their religion. It has
nothing to do with anti-Ukrainian mood among Serbs.
And as for deeds themselves, certain bad things happened during the latest,
Balkans wars, but they are war crimes, not something you are trying them to
be.
>In Bosnia Ukrainians, who settled primarily in Derventa, Prnjavor (of 900
>Ukrainians living in this area, over 500 have been killed), and
>Banja Luka were forcibly conscripted into the Serbian army.
General mobilization was declared in Serb controlled aereas of Bosnia. It
appealed to all. We can not call it forcible conscription but mobilization.
If someone refused it, authorities had to act. I am sure in bias media this
was and couldn't be described in any other way but "forcible conscription".
Ukrainians living in Bosnia just have to obey Bosnian laws same as any other
people.
>80% of the men did so - the cost of not doing so was torture and murder.
Certain actions sure would be done against them, but I am not sure if this
is not exaggregation.
>Refugees have
>reported that national minorities were forced to remain in
>the front line of combat and were followed by Serb troops who would
>shoot those who disobeyed orders.
Damn, obediance has to exist in the army, what else? Deserting couldn't be
allowed and if some of the troops are less trustworthy special attention had
to be payed to them.
>Explosives planted in the Ukrainian churches of Prnjavor and Banja Luka
>destroyed them.
There were certain destroyings of such objects in latest wars in all sides.
Was these churches Catholic?
>When activists within the Union of Ruthenians-Ukrainians in Yugoslavia
>(in Vojvodina) protested these actions, they were repressed by Serb
>authorities.
This is only thing that authorities of Serbia can be blamed for in this post
of yours. Repressed in what way?
>In May 1993 the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry denounced the brutal abuses
>done by Serbs against ethnic Ukrainians. It reported that hundreds of
>them were found in concentration camps and that libraries, churches,
>schools, and many individual homes were destroyed.
Many objects in Bosnia were destroyed due to war.
But this about abuses has to be proved first, specificaly explained what
actually happened and determined was it Serbian anti-Ukrainian mood (which I
doubt) or local Ukrainians just took sides in conflict and suffered the
consequences.
>They are now keeping somewhat of a low profile because they fear that
>continued pressure may bring about repurcussions in the relatively
>unscathed Ukrainian communities in Vojvodina.
I live in Vojvodina today and I can not say that I noticed some kind of
repercussions for Ukrainians.
>So much for Serbs supporting "Slavic brotherhood".
This has nothing to do with Slavic brotherhood because Balkans wars were
fought among Slavs. Serbs, Croats and Bosnian Muslims are all Slavs. Slavism
has nothing to do with it.
>I doubt that Austria was even close to Serbia in terms of its cruelty.
You said almost nothing about Serbia (Vojvodina) but was refering to Bosnia
and Croatia.
>If this is how "modern Europe" treats minorities one can only conclude
>that Austria was far more tolerant.
This is not how "modern Europe" or Serbia treats minorities. These were
extreme situations and it was war.
>The information here has been taken from Ameryka, the Ukrainian Weekly,
>Svoboda - and numerous personal accounts.
Hm, I wonder how trustworthy this sources are. Are this Catholic sources?
>Offical records showed 36,098 Ukrainians in the former Yugoslavia
>(church records indicated as many as 45,000). That number has now
>been dramatically "cleansed".
So what is your point? Many former Yugoslav left too.
>Do not infer this as an attack upon yourself or any other individual
>Serb. I believe that nations, as human systems, can be ascribed human
>characteristics, i.e. Serbia or Russia are "brutal", Serbs in this case
>are vicious, fanatical and cruel. But I am talking about the collective
>here. An individual Serb is as much to blame (unless he is an active
>participant) for this as is, for example, an individual neuron or other
>cell of a person who has committed a crime.
I understand what you are saying.
But although you do not blame me personally, I can not take these things
said about Serbs anything but insults.
Especially since I am Bosnian Serb.
Serbs are not vicious, fanatical or cruel but people as any other.
bab...@netscape.net
"Goran" <bos...@beotel.yu> wrote:
.........cut............
>
> >Serb troops destroyed Vukuvar, the center of
> >Ukrainian life in the former Yugoslavia.
>
> It was not Serb troops but federal Yugoslav army that was shelling city that
> was controlled by rebells. It had nothing to do with Ukrainians.
Are you implying the federal Yugoslav army was not Serb dominated? Serbia
still calls itself Yugoslavia.
>
> >Vasylii Sikorsky, president of
> >the Union of Ruthenians-Ukrainians in Croatia, noted that Ukrainians and
> >Ruthenians have experienced beatiungs, looting, food shortages, and
> >pressure to abandon their homes.
>
> I bet this Union in helped by budget of Croatia, and bias towards Serbs.
> Probably their site was in Zagreb or some other Croat controlled part of
> Croatia?
Well, after Vukovar's destruction, most of the people who could moved to
Zagreb; many have since left for Australia and elsewhere.
>
> >Deported Ukrainians and Ruthenians have
> >also reported murder and torture at the hands of the Serb army.
>
> a) it was not Serbian army
see above:
> b) I can not approach to these information other then rummors.
Ok.
> >Ukrainian
> >churches, monasteries and schools in the area of Vukovar, Petrovci (out of
> >1200 Ukrainian-Ruthenians, 961 were exiled) and Miklusevci were
> >systematically destroyed. Bishop Slavomyr Miklovsch of the Ukrainian
> >Catholic Church has reported these atrocities and destruction more fully.
>
> Many nationalities lived in Eastern Slavonia and Baranja during the war.
> This all aerea is outside of Serbia, so you can not claim that these
> treatments are deeds of Serbia but most probably local Serbs.
Ok...local Serb government....
> Since Ukrainians you are refering to are Catholic, they probably took Croat
> side during the war and therefore decided to share their destiny. It is
> common in Balkans that nations cooperate according to their religion. It has
> nothing to do with anti-Ukrainian mood among Serbs.
Ukrainians belong to the Ukrainian (Byzantine-Rite) Catholic Church. It is
independant of Roman Catholicism, has married clergy, Iconostas' in churches,
uses Liturgy rather than Mass, etc. There has been conflict with the Roman
Catholic churches in Poland and in America. About 5,000 Macedonians belong
to the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Yugoslavia. There might be something to
your comments, however, as the Czech organizations were especially helpful to
Ukrainian refugees.
> And as for deeds themselves, certain bad things happened during the latest,
> Balkans wars, but they are war crimes, not something you are trying them to
> be.
I'm only writing that Serbs were certainly worse than Austrians towards
national minorities.
> >In Bosnia Ukrainians, who settled primarily in Derventa, Prnjavor (of 900
> >Ukrainians living in this area, over 500 have been killed), and
> >Banja Luka were forcibly conscripted into the Serbian army.
>
> General mobilization was declared in Serb controlled aereas of Bosnia. It
> appealed to all. We can not call it forcible conscription but mobilization.
> If someone refused it, authorities had to act. I am sure in bias media this
> was and couldn't be described in any other way but "forcible conscription".
> Ukrainians living in Bosnia just have to obey Bosnian laws same as any other
> people.
Were these Serbs obeying "Bosnian Laws"? Apparently, laws only apply when
Serbs make them! And if you are a non-Serb, good luck!
..........cut...........
>
> Damn, obediance has to exist in the army, what else? Deserting couldn't be
> allowed and if some of the troops are less trustworthy special attention had
> to be payed to them.
It would seem the Serbs viewed the Ukrainians' lives as "more expendable"
by placing them in cannon fire. If the Serbs really were worried about
Ukrainian loyalty they would either have them do manual labor (where
betrayal would be less costly - this is what Soviets did to many Western
Ukrainians during W.W.II) or would, like Austria, treat them like
human beings and try not to give them reason to be disloyal.
>
> >Explosives planted in the Ukrainian churches of Prnjavor and Banja Luka
> >destroyed them.
>
> There were certain destroyings of such objects in latest wars in all side
Does that excuse anything? Were Ukrainians anywhere in a position to
destroy Serb churches? It seems that Serb rednecks were just trying
to get rid of anything non-Serb. I wonder if during WWI Austrians went
around destroying everything Serb that they could find. They were not
Nazis(or Serb-Nazis) however.
> Was these churches Catholic?
See above. They certainly weren't Roman Catholic. In Ukraine that Church
was traditionally a bastion of Ukrainian nationalism vs. Catholic Poland,
and was persecuted by Catholic Poles.
> >When activists within the Union of Ruthenians-Ukrainians in Yugoslavia
> >(in Vojvodina) protested these actions, they were repressed by Serb
> >authorities.
>
> This is only thing that authorities of Serbia can be blamed for in this post
> of yours. Repressed in what way?
Many of them were exiled. They were threatened with mass exile. So now
they keep quiet.
>
> >In May 1993 the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry denounced the brutal abuses
> >done by Serbs against ethnic Ukrainians. It reported that hundreds of
> >them were found in concentration camps and that libraries, churches,
> >schools, and many individual homes were destroyed.
>
> Many objects in Bosnia were destroyed due to war.
> But this about abuses has to be proved first, specificaly explained what
> actually happened and determined was it Serbian anti-Ukrainian mood (which I
> doubt) or local Ukrainians just took sides in conflict and suffered the
> consequences.
Why would Ukrainians in the center of Serb-controlled land (such as Banja
Luka) take sides in such a detrimental way? They are neither Serb nor
Croats.
> >They are now keeping somewhat of a low profile because they fear that
> >continued pressure may bring about repurcussions in the relatively
> >unscathed Ukrainian communities in Vojvodina.
>
> I live in Vojvodina today and I can not say that I noticed some kind of
> repercussions for Ukrainians.
Do you know any Ukrainians there?
...cut...........
>
> >I doubt that Austria was even close to Serbia in terms of its cruelty.
>
> You said almost nothing about Serbia (Vojvodina) but was refering to Bosnia
> and Croatia.
Ok. I doubt Austria was even close to Bosnian and Croatian Serb governments
in terms of cruelty.
> >If this is how "modern Europe" treats minorities one can only conclude
> >that Austria was far more tolerant.
>
> This is not how "modern Europe" or Serbia treats minorities. These were
> extreme situations and it was war.
>
> >The information here has been taken from Ameryka, the Ukrainian Weekly,
> >Svoboda - and numerous personal accounts.
>
> Hm, I wonder how trustworthy this sources are. Are this Catholic sources?
They are Ukrainian sources. Some Ukrainians are Catholic, other Orthodox.
Practically none are Roman Catholic however. Religion is not much of an
issue - as long as it isn't foreign!
Babai
> >Offical records showed 36,098 Ukrainians in the former Yugoslavia
> >(church records indicated as many as 45,000). That number has now
> >been dramatically "cleansed".
>
> So what is your point? Many former Yugoslav left too.
>
> >Do not infer this as an attack upon yourself or any other individual
> >Serb. I believe that nations, as human systems, can be ascribed human
> >characteristics, i.e. Serbia or Russia are "brutal", Serbs in this case
> >are vicious, fanatical and cruel. But I am talking about the collective
> >here. An individual Serb is as much to blame (unless he is an active
> >participant) for this as is, for example, an individual neuron or other
> >cell of a person who has committed a crime.
>
> I understand what you are saying.
> But although you do not blame me personally, I can not take these things
> said about Serbs anything but insults.
> Especially since I am Bosnian Serb.
> Serbs are not vicious, fanatical or cruel but people as any other.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
bab...@netscape.net
"Goran" <bos...@beotel.yu> wrote:
> >I guess I fail to see the contradiction between freedom and "enlightened
> >rule". Why can these not coexist?
>
> Because it is not freedom if something you ought to have has to be given to
> you by an foreign ruler.
"Freedom" exists regardless of the manner of its birth. Is Canada, which
did not have to undergo a revolution and which still considers Elizabeth
the Head of State, not free? Of course, in most cases freedom had to come
at the price of blood - but if this was not necessary, it's a nice thing
right?
>
> >I agree that in a perfect world A & H
> >would have been unnecessary...but it was not a perfect world (more on this
> >later)
>
> Well, I am sure world and Empires were even more perfect in the past, but
> changhes are what made this world more perfect.
Yeah....changes such as Hitler's occupation of central Europe and slaughter
of most of its Jews, Gypsies, many Serbs, many Ukrainians and Poles,
followed by Soviet-Russian occupation for 40+ years are what made this
world more perfect. Now after all of this bloodshed, after several lost
generations, the lands of former A & H are where they were in 1918.
Congratulations.
> >I agree that ideally A & H would have been unnecessary (same for NATO).
> >However, unfortunately, the small nations of central Europe were surrounded
> >by aggressive and hungry Powers - Turkey, Germany, Russia.
>
> And conquered by Austria. AH was the same as other hungry powers.
Totally wrong. Russia, for example, banned Ukrainian language in 1860's.
Germany was much harsher towards Poles than was Germany and Russia.
And do you think Serbs were even in a similar situation in Austria as
they were in Turkey?
>
> >Alone, they could not (and did not) survive independantly.
>
> Present map of Europe shows us that you are wrong.
Yes....after millions dead and culture robbed for generations. Now
they are trying to join E.U. - something similar to the Austria they
prevented from forming. Did you know, by the way, that Dr. Otto
Habsburg (son of the last Emperor Karl) was heavily involved in the
creation of E.U.? And that there they were considering giving the
Hapsburgs some kind of honorary title? (I read this in "The European"
newspaper when I was in Paris in 1991, and don't remember more details
about it. I think Hapsburg refused the title). So at least one can say
that, on some level, they have learned from their mistakes.
> And such things as i.e. Balkan wars in which Turkey was defeated by small
> nations of southern Europe are another proof that you are wrong.
Turkey was the "sick man of Europe". I doubt those small nations could
have done this without the approval of the other Powers, i.e. they were
pawns.
........cut...........
>
> As I already said few times, AH was just another of those Empireas as Russia
> or Germany
Neither had nearly the same level of national rights, nor a plan to
increase those rights.
> and it is question how would it evolve anyway, in some German
> like Nazi state or regionalization would be replaced by desintegration.
Well, the evidence I presented seems to strongly suggest the way it would
evolve. Franz Ferdinand wrote that himself.
> But no matter what of this would happen, freedom of European nations was
> better choice then any foreign Empire.
The Empire would no longer be Foreign once all of the nations would be
able to participate.
........cut..........
>
> Princip did not start WW1 but Austria did.
> As for future, we do not know in what way Austria would develop further. It
> is just your bias presumption that it would be better under AH then USSR.
> Yes, they wanted to democratize their state, ok, possible, but who can
> guarantee it would last long enough. Hitler won elections too in democratic
> state.
You're right - nobody will know. But the chances for a Hitler would be
quite small.
> Freedom is always better then being ruled.
Sure.
> USSR domination should not appear, but also AH should not exist further. You
> can not justify one evil by another.
AH was not really evil, in contrast to USSR or even puppet states after
WWII. Ideally, Czechs, Croats, Bosnian Muslims, etc. could live in
independant states. Unfortunately, the world is a zoo and the only
hope of the weak is to unite against the strong. As long as that union
is just (unlike USSR or perhaps Yugoslavia).
Austria had a real hope of becoming such a strong, fair union of small
nations. Hapssburgs did not think in narrow "pro-German" nationalistic
terms (hence Hitler's conflict with Austria). If you recall, Karl I tried
to become King of Hungary after the Empire's collapse (this did not happen
primarily from Romanian-Yugoslav opposition).
Babai
> >> >There were German communities in Czechia and Romania who
> >> >were relatively undisturbed until W.W.II.
> >> Yep, they showed their face in WW2 I guess.
> >I think that you have unwittingly shown a true point. Under Austria there
> was
> >decency and not animosity. Under the successor caused by Austria's
> >downfall brutality took the stage.
>
> I was talking about German communities.
> If you are too, well, it is possible they would be no so brutal if they were
> still ruling over Czech and Romanians.
> Great choice. Be ruled or feel our anger.
>
> >> >That's kind of questionable....was there a referendum about it?
> >>
> >> Great. Was there any referendum about joining AH? Do you think Bosnian
> Serbs
> >> wanted to join AH when they uprised against Turkey in 1875.? Do you think
> >> Bosnian Muslims wanted to join Austria when they uprised against
> Austrians
> >> in 1878.?
> >Could you please write more about those events? I was under the impression
> >that Austria merely took over from Turkey, i.e. they did not invade an
> >independant state. Perhaps I am mistaken?
>
> No, you are not, they did took over from Turkey. It was agreed in Berlin
> kongress for them to occupy Bosnia to "secure peace and order" or smthg like
> this.
> Turksih army retreat but they left number of arms to local Muslims who
> opposed to Austria as they could. Ofcourse, they could not do anything of
> significance. In 1908. Austria declared Bosnia to be part of AH, without any
> right.
>
> >> What is the difference between present day European minorities and
> >> subjugated peoples in AH? Well, for instance, minorities had to live in
> >> foreign countries so borders could be drawn easily, peace could be
> >> estabilished etc. and AH was ruling peoples that had right to be free and
> >> that had no country of their own.
> >As I have said, Franz Ferdinand wanted A & H to be a "country of their
> >own".
>
> As I stated many times already, it was not enough.
>
> >The alternatives, as I hopefully have shwon, have proven to be failures.
>
> If we look in present day Europe we could say you are wrong.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Mike Davidchik
> Since Ukrainians you are refering to are Catholic, they probably took Croat
> side during the war and therefore decided to share their destiny. It is
> common in Balkans that nations cooperate according to their religion. It has
> nothing to do with anti-Ukrainian mood among Serbs.
The persecution of the Ruthenian or Ukrainian Catholic Church in Communist
Eastern Europe is nothing new. Both the Yugoslavs and Russians did it.
For some reason, Serbians think that any so-called "Slavic Brotherhood,"
only includes Orthodox Christians. There are just as many Slavic
Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, in the world. They just were never
allowed to freely exist in Serbia or Russia.
>
> There were certain destroyings of such objects in latest wars in all sides.
> Was these churches Catholic?
Is it okay to destroy churches if they are Catholic? Can you blame
Ukrianian Catholics if they wre sympathetic to the Croations?
> >When activists within the Union of Ruthenians-Ukrainians in Yugoslavia
> >(in Vojvodina) protested these actions, they were repressed by Serb
> >authorities.
>
> This is only thing that authorities of Serbia can be blamed for in this post
> of yours. Repressed in what way?
They have always been repressed in Communist Europe.
>
> >In May 1993 the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry denounced the brutal abuses
> >done by Serbs against ethnic Ukrainians. It reported that hundreds of
> >them were found in concentration camps and that libraries, churches,
> >schools, and many individual homes were destroyed.
>
> Many objects in Bosnia were destroyed due to war.
> But this about abuses has to be proved first, specificaly explained what
> actually happened and determined was it Serbian anti-Ukrainian mood (which I
> doubt) or local Ukrainians just took sides in conflict and suffered the
> consequences.
Nonsense...the Serbs have been persecuting Catholics in Yugoslavia for
fifty years. There was a policy of eliminating Greek Rite Catholics among
the secret police of most of the Communist Bloc countries. Stalin was
paranoid about the Vatican.
>
> >So much for Serbs supporting "Slavic brotherhood".
>
> This has nothing to do with Slavic brotherhood because Balkans wars were
> fought among Slavs. Serbs, Croats and Bosnian Muslims are all Slavs. Slavism
> has nothing to do with it.
>
> >I doubt that Austria was even close to Serbia in terms of its cruelty.
>
> You said almost nothing about Serbia (Vojvodina) but was refering to Bosnia
> and Croatia.
>
> >If this is how "modern Europe" treats minorities one can only conclude
> >that Austria was far more tolerant.
>
> This is not how "modern Europe" or Serbia treats minorities. These were
> extreme situations and it was war.
What a joke.
>
> >The information here has been taken from Ameryka, the Ukrainian Weekly,
> >Svoboda - and numerous personal accounts.
>
> Hm, I wonder how trustworthy this sources are. Are this Catholic sources?
So they are untrustworthy if they are Catholic sources? How trustworthy
are the Orthodox sources in this part of Europe?
>
> >Offical records showed 36,098 Ukrainians in the former Yugoslavia
> >(church records indicated as many as 45,000). That number has now
> >been dramatically "cleansed".
>
> So what is your point? Many former Yugoslav left too.
The point is that nobody should be cleansed. They were probably cleansed
not because they were Ukrainians, but because they were Ukrainian
Catholics. Also tthe russified Ukrainians sometimes don't consider
Ruthenians as Ukrainians and they know that.
> But although you do not blame me personally, I can not take these things
> said about Serbs anything but insults.
> Especially since I am Bosnian Serb.
> Serbs are not vicious, fanatical or cruel but people as any other.
I agree with you that Serbs as a people are not worse. But, they have
worse leaders and a worse government and I would hardly take a criticism
of the Serb leadership as a personal insult. I hear posters say bad
things about the American government every day on the Internet, but I
don't consider that as a personal insult.
Mike
Igor
Goran wrote in message <7brcp3$ctm$2...@zevs.beotel.net>...
>+++++++++++++++++++++++
>Veliki Srbin te posmatra!
>bab...@netscape.net wrote in message <7bpkph$fj9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>Here is the promised information (I've made it a separate post):
>
>Ok.
>
>>> What is so wrong with Ukrainians in Yugoslavia?
>>Ukrainians have lived in Yugoslavia since 1745; their largest town,
>>Ruski Krstur, is in Vojvodina.
Those are Ruthenes, but OK we can call em Ukrainians if you want.
>>Ukrainian
>>churches, monasteries and schools in the area of Vukovar, Petrovci (out of
>>1200 Ukrainian-Ruthenians, 961 were exiled) and Miklusevci were
>>systematically destroyed. Bishop Slavomyr Miklovsch of the Ukrainian
>>Catholic Church has reported these atrocities and destruction more fully.
>
>Many nationalities lived in Eastern Slavonia and Baranja during the war.
>This all aerea is outside of Serbia, so you can not claim that these
>treatments are deeds of Serbia but most probably local Serbs.
>Since Ukrainians you are refering to are Catholic, they probably took Croat
>side during the war and therefore decided to share their destiny.
Actually, Ruthenes are not Catholics but simply Uniates, they have the same
practice as Orthodox but recognize the pope and call themselves "catholics".
Now of course, it is easy to brainwash them into supporting the Croat cause
when they are being told "you are cattholics"...
>It is
>common in Balkans that nations cooperate according to their religion. It
has
>nothing to do with anti-Ukrainian mood among Serbs.
That's exactly true, those Ruthenes that did flee most certainly did
identify themselves as Croats and maybe even joined the ZNG, had a Serb, God
forbid if there was one, done the same, he would have been given the same
treatment.
>>So much for Serbs supporting "Slavic brotherhood".
>
>This has nothing to do with Slavic brotherhood because Balkans wars were
>fought among Slavs. Serbs, Croats and Bosnian Muslims are all Slavs.
Slavism
>has nothing to do with it.
I would also like to add that you constantly refer to Ukrainians when in
fact you mean Ruthenes, the Ukrainians are sparce and live in Vojvodina
while the Ruthenes live in Backa, Srem, Slavonia etc.
>>I doubt that Austria was even close to Serbia in terms of its cruelty.
>
>You said almost nothing about Serbia (Vojvodina) but was refering to Bosnia
>and Croatia.
>
>>If this is how "modern Europe" treats minorities one can only conclude
>>that Austria was far more tolerant.
>
>This is not how "modern Europe" or Serbia treats minorities. These were
>extreme situations and it was war.
I would like to tell you a story that I read in a book covering the history
of Ukrainians. It was about a A-H official who was trying to make an example
in order to discourage corruption in his empire, he then said something like
"We can take an Austrian because the intelligentsia would then use it as
ammunition against us saying that Austrians are becoming repressed in their
own country, Hungarians are still sore from their national revival and the
repression of their revolution, Czechs would just lash out, Croats and
Serbs, that area is volatile enough and then he said, I know, and he asked
his assistant, what nationality are you, do you have any non-Austrian blood,
Ukrainian perhaps? The man responded, no Ruthene." That was used by the
author, Paul Magosci to describe the situation of the Ruthenes in A-H they
were used as scapegoats pretty much.
Now let me clarify and get to my conclusion, truly, as Goran said, some
Ruthenes (Uniates) did take the side of the Croats according to "religion"
because their Uniate church, was actually closely linked to the Catholic
church and composed of Ruthenes and Uniate Serbs who now identify themselves
as "Croats". This is another fine example, there were many Serbs who were
Uniatized and Croatized and carry the last name Petrovic or Popovic and
clearly took the side of Croats, certainly, they were not treated warmly.
Second, the Ukraine and Yugoslavia have set up excellent relations, the
Ukrainian parliament has several times protested against the NATO threats
and cultural ties are very warm, despite also the fact that it was thanks
the Ukraine, that during sanctions, we got not so expensive gasoline and oil
(Albanians would sell it at triple the price).
And third, if you want repression, take a look at this fact, Slovaks also
live all over pretty much the same areas as Ruthenes and in even greater
number, can you explain why so many were expulsed by the Croats and that
many even left for Vojvodina for fear of being killed and repressed by
Croats? Simple, unlike their kin in the north, they are Protestants. Of
course, to be protected from the Croats who were out for their blood, they
sided with the Serbs and that's that, the multicultural societies of
Slavonia and Vojvodina were divided into alliances according to religion,
some did truly stay neutral, but many were divided and it stayed that way.
Igor
babai1+AEA-netscape.net wrote in message +ADw-7bnlrk+ACQ-p7j+ACQ-1+AEA-nnrp1.dejanews.com+AD4-...
+AD4-In article +ADw-7bk1s6+ACQ-img+ACQ-2+AEA-zevs.beotel.net+AD4-,
+AD4- +ACI-Goran+ACI- +ADw-bosanac+AEA-beotel.yu+AD4- wrote:
+AD4APg- +AD4- I'm not saying F.F. was a
+AD4APg- +AD4-sort of Gandhi - he merely wanted to hold on to what his family had for
+AD4APg- 600
+AD4APg- +AD4-years. But he realized that this would be impossible unless his subjects
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- +AD4-got something in return - cultural and political autonomy.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- a) it is question would he suceed in his intentions.
+AD4-
+AD4-Of course, we will never know. But he would have been the Emperor -
Fat chance, he was seen as a softie and +ACI-Slavophile+ACI- by most Austrians who
still believed that they, with a Slavic majority in their empire could keep
on opressing them.
+AD4-so
+AD4-probably the chances would have been good that he would have extended the
+AD4-rights of Slavs and that there would have been no invasion of Serbia (F.F.
He would have extended the rights but not as much as most were demanding, as
for the occupation of Serbia, I do not know, maybe he just wanted, like his
peers, to subjugate it economically but I am certain that if he viewed that
any revolutionnary or pan-Slav movement that could potentially ruin and
parcel his +ACI-empire+ACI- then he probably would have even invaded Serbia.
+AD4-strongly opposed this, as I documented in a previous post). In fact, when
+AD4-Franz Josef fell ill in 1914, the +ACI-pro-punish Serbia+ACI- element of the
Austrian
+AD4-government (chief among them the chief of staff Conrad) prepared their
+AD4-resignations (in order to keep their pensions) in anticipation of Franz
+AD4-Ferdinand's ascension. So, it would have been the likely scenario.
I am afraid to tell you that most Austrians, who were mostly
+ACI-pro-punish-Serbia+ACI- despised Franz Ferdinand and were hoping somehow to get
rid of him, who do you think planned for him to have his visit on Vidovdan
1914? That was an almost sure bet, get two stones with one - have an excuse
to occupy Serbia and get rid of the +ACI-Slavophile+ACI-.
+AD4APg- b) you admitted yourself. He just wanted to keep controll over other
peoples
+AD4APg- that deserved to be free. Nothing so great about him.
+AD4-
+AD4-You misunderstood me. He did not want to +ACI-control other peoples+ACI- - he
+AD4-wanted to keep his job as Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary etc. etc.
Well that meant reigning over peoples that did not wish so.
+AD4-This did not imply a suppression of these people's cultural or
+AD4-political rights.
No, only the supression of their identity.
+AD4APg- Well, I am mostly not interested in Czech or whoever else. I care about
+AD4APg- Serbs. If they wanted, they could stay in AH, I don't care.
+AD4-
+AD4-Ok. But did Serbs have the right to decide for everyone in B +ACY- H?
Serbs were the majority, and formed absolute majorities in about 70 +ACU- of the
terrain if not more. Plus, many Bosnian muslims would have rather opted for
Serbia than A-H and this desire was even present in a few Croats too.
+AD4-Franz Ferdinand himself was categorically against the invasion of Serbia,
+AD4-because he knew that the people there would never be reconciled to
+AD4-an Austrian regime.
Perhaps, when did he say that?
+AD4APg- +AD4-Out
+AD4APg- +AD4-of curiosity - how did Croats and other non-Serbs behave when Germany
+AD4APg- +AD4-invaded Yugoslavia?
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- I bet you know very well.
+AD4-
+AD4-They behaved like oppressed people becoming horribly extreme - a
+AD4-large-scale version of Palestinians machine-gunning Israeli buses.
+AD4-
+AD4-Slavs in A +ACY- H didn't act this way because, um, they weren't really
+AD4-oppressed?
What do you mean by +ACI-Slavs did not act this way+ACI-, what way? when?
+AD4APg- +AD4- A +ACY- H was a viable (though troubled) state that needed (and would have
+AD4- +AD4-
+AD4-gotten)restructuring+ADs-
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- It was still empire ruling peoples that wanted to be free. At least some
of
+AD4APg- the peoples did.
+AD4-
+AD4-That's kind of questionable....was there a referendum about it?
+AD4-Again, it seems to have been a Quebec-like +ACI-wanting to be free+ACI- - that
+AD4-with the proper leadership the multinational state would have existed.
Perhaps but I feel, that there is a difference, over here in Quebec, well
actually, the situation is more like two separate countries Quebec and the
rest of Canada in one alliance called +ACI-Canada+ACI-. French is the second
official language, every Canadian needs to know a little and every sign
needs to be bilingual, even in Vancouver or Calgary. Whereas in A-H you know
what the case was, Slovak towns had Hungarian names and Hungarian only
became official after I believe 1867.
+AD4APg- And it is very possible that if AH existed they would be his +AFs-Hitler's+AF0-
+AD4APg- allies.
+AD4-
+AD4-Almost impossible. Nazism was essentially, ideologically opposed to
+AD4-everything Austria stood for. Hitler fled Austria so that he wouldn't
+AD4-have to live among non-Germans. Hitler would have tried to dismember
+AD4-Austria.
Hitler did in fact, believe that A-H leadership was flawed, but I am not so
sure that he would want A-H to be dismembered, he might have tried to make
A-H even more centralized than it already was.
+AD4APg- +AD4-This is quite likely...Franz Ferdinand was a huge counterbalance to the
+AD4APg- +AD4-generals who wanted to +ACI-punish+ACI- Serbia for supporting B +ACY- H's withdrawal
+AD4APg- +AD4-from Austria. With him gone, war became much more likely.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- Well, I wonder if FF wasn't killed, how much would it took to AH rulers
to
+AD4APg- find another excuse.
+AD4-
+AD4-They never would. Prior to his murder, Franz Ferdinand convinced the
+AD4-German Emperor to push for keeping peace with Serbia. The pro-war forces
+AD4-could not have succeeded with Franz Ferdinand's constant opposition - he
+AD4-was the crown prince+ACE- As long as Franz Ferdinand was alive there would
+AD4-have been no invasion of Serbia and, thus, no world war.
Exactly, which made his killing more useful to the Austrian officials then
any Serb.
+AD4APg- +AD4-But, although making
+AD4APg- +AD4-war was a stupid and horrible mistake, Austria still had the right.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- Nothing similar.
+AD4-
+AD4-Serbia refused Austria's demand to have its own police look for the
+AD4-conspirators in Serbia.
This would have been the lowest line of colonialism, Serbia did not say no
but said that it would accept to it only after a ruling vy the Hague court
according to +ACI-principles of international law and criminal procedures and
neighbourly relations+ACI-. Serbia was ready to arrest half its populace to
prevent war. Austria had set these conditions hoping to get a categorical
refusal from Serbia, which they did not, so they said, what they heck, let's
go anyway.
+AD4-Although the link between Princip and the Serb
+AD4-government was not established until after the war,
Never established, the Mlada Bosna was armed by the +ACI-Black Hand+ACI-, an
independent secret society whose actions were decided by Colonel Apis while
the Austrians, in their ultimatum, stated that +ACI-Narodna Odbrana+ACI- another
association of former military officers but a governmental association, was
guilty. In this, Austria was either ill-informed or trying to incriminate
Serbia.
+AD4-Austria had a
+AD4-reasonable idea that there was Serbian governmental involvment.
None whatsoever, Pasic was perplexed, in fact, one senior member of the
Mlada Bosna, Tankosic, even said that he furnished weapons for the Mlada
Bosna in order to spite Pasic who had wanted to keep anti-Austrian sentiment
at an all-time low.
+AD4-So, then,
+AD4-it was reasonable to conclude that a Serb-only investigation could have
+AD4-been likely. Austria's demands were harsh but not unfair. They were
+AD4-stupid politically, of course....Austria should have accepted the
+AD4-compromise.
You seem to be some sort of Triple Entente apologist, every modern historian
accepts the fact that Austria itself was surprised at how much of the
agreement Serbia accepted, it had made it that way to get a no to almost
every clause and it got all ten +ACI-yes+ACI-.
Here are some of your +ACI-fair demands+ACI- and my comments on them
1. To supress any publication directed against Austria-Hungary.
(this would involve censoring and supression of the right of speech. Is this
your kind of austrian democracy?)
2. To dissolve the Narodna Odbrana and similar societies in future.
(this is clearly vague, like saying: +ACI-stop doing things I don't like and do
not adopt any habits which would annoy me in the future+ACI-)
4. To remove army officers and civil functionnairies guilty of propaganda
against the monarchy.
(what is propaganda and what is freedom of expression? what is propaganda
and what is fact? who decides? is any bad opinion about the monarchy called
propaganda?)
9. To explain hostile utterances of Serbian officials.
( I am guessing that they did not want the truth but some lie like : +ACI-he is
a traitor of the Austro-Serb cause+ACI- or he is just a +ACI-Russian imperialist
conspirator+ACI- to explain the simple fact that AUSTRIA WAS OPPRESSING SERBS
AND OTHER SLAVS)
+AD4APg- +AD4APg- +AD4-One of the conspirator's (Ilic? - I'm not sure)
+AD4APg- +AD4APg- +AD4-father hung up an Austrian flag and really hated his
+AD4APg- +AD4APg- +AD4-son's involvement in anti-Hapsburg groups. So what?
+AD4APg- +AD4APg- So what? You brought it up.
+AD4APg- +AD4-It was an example of many in B +ACY- H not minding the Austrian government.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- It was example of one Bosnian.
What Ilic are we talking about here?
+AD4APg- Blah. Great majority of population of Bosnia were Serbs. I am sure that
at
+AD4APg- least 95+ACU- of them prefered Serbia then AH. And you had South Slav
movement
+AD4APg- (Yugoslav), many Bosnian Muslims still considered themselves as Serbs or
at
+AD4APg- least South Slavs..... hm. I doubt.
+AD4-
+AD4-There is nothing to suggest their opinions were not stronger than the ones
+AD4-found in Quebec.
What is the point of comparing the two, I have lived in Serbia and Quebec
and I can not get your point here.
+AD4APg- +AD4-What was the composition of B +ACY- H before the Ustashe killed many Serbs?
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- Well, in 1914., according to Austrian data it was like this: Orthodox
+AD4APg- 930,000
+AD4APg- Moslem 620,000
+AD4APg- Catholic 420,000
+AD4APg- Serbs were Orthodox, noone else was. Also number of Muslims anc Catholic
+AD4APg- were Serbs by ethnicity, although in process of assimilation in Croats.
+AD4APg- And, this might be a bit incorrect because AH was antiSerbian. So, maybe
+AD4APg- there were even more Orthodox.
+AD4-
+AD4-Certainly not a huge majority.....
Maybe not a huge majority but a majority on about 70 +ACU- of the land, and
consider the fact that in Mlada Bosna, there was in order of importance,
Serbs, Bosnian muslims and Croats.
+AD4APg- +AD4-It seems that most Croats and Muslims,
+AD4APg- +AD4-as well as at least a large number of Serbs (such as Ilic's
father)weren't
+AD4APg- +AD4-against Austria. Even if 40+ACU- of B +ACY- H hated Austrians, however,
Pocorek's
+AD4APg- +AD4-actions would have been justified militarily.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- Ilic's father is probably an shameful exception or just man of honour
that
+AD4APg- disliked such actions as killing a Archduke. But I doubt there were much
+AD4APg- people like him among Bosnian Serbs, and maybe even other Bosnians.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- +AD4APg- As for mass guerrila warfare, there was no such thing, but it means
+AD4APg- +AD4APg- nothing.
+AD4APg- +AD4-It means, that people of B +ACY- H weren't so desperate for independence.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- Rebellion had no chance for success, I believe that is main reason why it
+AD4APg- did not happen.
If you are wondering why the Serbs of A-H had not rebelled the answer is
simple, they were displaced and many were shipped to concentration
(+ACI-internment+ACI-) camps. The biggest punishment was not execution but sending
you to the front to fight agaisnt your kin.
+AD4APg- +AD4-USSR
+AD4APg- +AD4-fought a bloody war to conquer Ukraine during the Russian civil war+ADs-
Serbs
+AD4APg- +AD4-under Turkey had numerous revolts against the Turks+ADs- Kurds, Timorese,
+AD4APg- Tamils,
+AD4APg- +AD4-Palestinians, etc. have recently fought their oppressors. But what were
+AD4APg- the
+AD4APg- +AD4-people of Bosnia doing during the +ACI-horrible+ACI- 30 year Austrian
occupation?
+AD4APg- +AD4-Perhaps it was not so horrible?
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- Probably it was not. But it was still occupation. Without any God damn
+AD4APg- reason for it's existance.
There were rebellions, one in 1882 was especially noted, Serbs and Bosnian
muslims took part in it together.
Mike Davidchik
> Ukrainians belong to the Ukrainian (Byzantine-Rite) Catholic Church. It is
> independant of Roman Catholicism, has married clergy, Iconostas' in churches,
> uses Liturgy rather than Mass, etc. There has been conflict with the Roman
> Catholic churches in Poland and in America.
Your statement is true except that it is NOT "independent." It has its own
clergy and bishoprics, but recognizes the authority of the Pope. There is
a conflict between Latin and Greek Rite Catholic churches in Poland, but
not in North America. The Byzantine Catholic Church has its own hierarchy
with its own bishops, patriarchs, and cardinals, but each recognize each
other's liturgy and sacraments. Any Catholic in North America can receive
the sacraments in either Church. There are several Greek Rite Catholic
patriarchs in North America that
report directly to Rome only. The only issue in North America is over
ordaining married priests.
About 5,000 Macedonians belong
> to the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Yugoslavia. There might be something to
> your comments, however, as the Czech organizations were especially helpful to
> Ukrainian refugees.
The Greek Rite Catholic Church has been revived in Czech and Slovakia
(with the help of the Vatican). An interesting sidelight is that a number
of married priests were secretly ordained in the Roman Catholic Church
because the Byzantine Catholic Church was outlawed. Later, when the Greek
Rite was revived, they transferred to it.
> > Was these churches Catholic?
>
> See above. They certainly weren't Roman Catholic. In Ukraine that Church
> was traditionally a bastion of Ukrainian nationalism vs. Catholic Poland,
> and was persecuted by Catholic Poles.
It was persecuted by Poles in Poland, but persecuted by the Soviets all
over Eastern Europe. The Poles did nothing compared to the Russians and
their kindred to wipe out the Greek Rite Catholic Church.
Austria-Hungary, although Catholic, practiced much religious toleration.
If it were not for A-H, there probably would be no Ukrainian Catholic
Church in Western Ukraine today. In the areas partitioned to Russia, it
was forcibly incorporated into the Russian Orthodox Church with their
churches given away and priests killed or imprisoned.
The Uniates were a bastion of nationalism in Ukraine and Belarus...that's
why the Russians and Communists got rid of them. It was outlawed in
Russian controlled areas as early as the 1840s and, later, in the 20th
Century by the Soviets. In Belarus and the Eastern Ukraine almost all
priests were killed, imprisoned, or had to escape to the West.
> Why would Ukrainians in the center of Serb-controlled land (such as Banja
> Luka) take sides in such a detrimental way? They are neither Serb nor
> Croats.
They would not have to take sides. If they were Catholic, they were
automatically suspicious to the old Serb Regime.
> > Hm, I wonder how trustworthy this sources are. Are this Catholic sources?
>
> They are Ukrainian sources. Some Ukrainians are Catholic, other Orthodox.
> Practically none are Roman Catholic however. Religion is not much of an
> issue - as long as it isn't foreign!
This doesn't make any difference in the eyes of the old Commies or the
Serbian Orthodox. They think that Greek Catholics are just Roman
Catholics in disguise. If they aren't Serbian Orthodox, they are the
enemy. Unfortunately, this is the opinion in most of the old Commie
world. Byzantine or Ukrainian Catholics never refer to themselves as
"Uniates." This terminology is used by the Eastern Orthodox.
Mike
Igor
>> >Ukrainian life in the former Yugoslavia.
>>
>> It was not Serb troops but federal Yugoslav army that was shelling city
that
>> was controlled by rebells. It had nothing to do with Ukrainians.
>
>Are you implying the federal Yugoslav army was not Serb dominated? Serbia
>still calls itself Yugoslavia.
JNA was not Serb-dominated, Serbs were pro-JNA oriented yes but it was not
necessarily the other way around. Serbia and Montenegro are called
Yugoslavia because Serbia-Montenegro sounds like a stupid name and Slobo and
his wife (especially) are still into Titoism.
>> Since Ukrainians you are refering to are Catholic, they probably took
Croat
>> side during the war and therefore decided to share their destiny. It is
>> common in Balkans that nations cooperate according to their religion. It
has
>> nothing to do with anti-Ukrainian mood among Serbs.
>
>Ukrainians belong to the Ukrainian (Byzantine-Rite) Catholic Church. It is
>independant of Roman Catholicism, has married clergy, Iconostas' in
churches,
>uses Liturgy rather than Mass, etc. There has been conflict with the Roman
>Catholic churches in Poland and in America. About 5,000 Macedonians belong
>to the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Yugoslavia. There might be something
to
>your comments, however, as the Czech organizations were especially helpful
to
>Ukrainian refugees.
Those Macedonians are late-converts to Uniatism because their
self-proclaimed Orthodox church is not recognized. Although the Uniates have
been in conflict with the Catholic they have been noted to feel more closely
to them. Now of course, they all call themselves Catholics, including the
Ruthenes who do so incorrectly, in that part of the world, you are either
with us or against us. Had the Ruthenes said that they Uniatised Orthodox
the Serbs would have said "eh brothers", it might seem as stupid as that but
it means that you change your alliance and your whole life thus the Croats
would have expulsed them.
>> And as for deeds themselves, certain bad things happened during the
latest,
>> Balkans wars, but they are war crimes, not something you are trying them
to
>> be.
>
>I'm only writing that Serbs were certainly worse than Austrians towards
>national minorities.
You seem so reassured of this, why? See my other response that I posted
above.
>> >In Bosnia Ukrainians, who settled primarily in Derventa, Prnjavor (of
900
>> >Ukrainians living in this area, over 500 have been killed), and
>> >Banja Luka were forcibly conscripted into the Serbian army.
>>
>> General mobilization was declared in Serb controlled aereas of Bosnia. It
>> appealed to all. We can not call it forcible conscription but
mobilization.
>> If someone refused it, authorities had to act. I am sure in bias media
this
>> was and couldn't be described in any other way but "forcible
conscription".
>> Ukrainians living in Bosnia just have to obey Bosnian laws same as any
other
>> people.
>
>Were these Serbs obeying "Bosnian Laws"? Apparently, laws only apply when
>Serbs make them! And if you are a non-Serb, good luck!
What the heck are you talking about, the same was done to every single
minority, "you are either with us or against us", and if you must know,
there were no "Bosnian laws" but general mobilization was a law of Socialist
Yugoslavia, all deserters or protesters to mobilization were to be arrested
and prosecuted. You would be surprised to find out how many non-Serbs
actually fought in the Serb military formations, Croats, Muslims and even
"others" or as you call them, minorities.
And by the way, do you see the difference between the Orthodox Ukrainians
and the Uniate Ruthenes? The Ukrainians were mobilized simply because they
were Orthodox. There is no anti-Ukrianian/Ruthene plot. OK?
>> Damn, obediance has to exist in the army, what else? Deserting couldn't
be
>> allowed and if some of the troops are less trustworthy special attention
had
>> to be payed to them.
>
>It would seem the Serbs viewed the Ukrainians' lives as "more expendable"
>by placing them in cannon fire.
Oh come on! Most Serbs did not care whether they were Ukrianians or not, the
same was done to Serbian deserters if you must know.
>If the Serbs really were worried about
>Ukrainian loyalty they would either have them do manual labor (where
>betrayal would be less costly - this is what Soviets did to many Western
>Ukrainians during W.W.II) or would, like Austria, treat them like
>human beings and try not to give them reason to be disloyal.
There was not much manual labor in this latest war, plus, Serbian forces
were short on manpower, they were outnumbered 2 to 1 by Muslims and Croats
allies.
>> >Explosives planted in the Ukrainian churches of Prnjavor and Banja Luka
>> >destroyed them.
>>
>> There were certain destroyings of such objects in latest wars in all side
>
>Does that excuse anything? Were Ukrainians anywhere in a position to
>destroy Serb churches? It seems that Serb rednecks were just trying
>to get rid of anything non-Serb. I wonder if during WWI Austrians went
>around destroying everything Serb that they could find. They were not
>Nazis(or Serb-Nazis) however.
If you must know, yes. Austrians were noted for their savagery in World War
one, especially in the Macva region of northwestern Serbia, the only region
that they had managed to conquer after their third major offensive in a year
of work of "destroying Serbia". Churches were destroyed, civilians shot and
hanged, and villages burnt to the ground, of course, the Croat "domobran"
units did some of this but the regular Austrian divisions also had their
part. As general Schturm, having served in the Prussian army and then in the
Serbian army, said "the fathers and grandfathers of these soldiers would be
turning in their graves had they seen how their country's army was
behaving". War was once a gentleman's classy thing back in the 19th century,
this of course changed after savagery was introduced by you know whom (anach
ronically premature German nazis) in WW I.
>> Was these churches Catholic?
>
>See above. They certainly weren't Roman Catholic. In Ukraine that Church
>was traditionally a bastion of Ukrainian nationalism vs. Catholic Poland,
>and was persecuted by Catholic Poles.
They were persecuted by Catholic Poles but they were forced by those same
Poles to become Uniates, anyways, the Uniates were so linked with
Catholicism (their clergy was not educated in Catholic institutions) that
some of them actually believe that they are catholics of "the eastern rite".
I doubt it, Ukrainians living in northern Bosnia were precisely Orthodox and
Ukrainians, therefore, you can guess for yourself who destroyed those
Orthodox churches.
Hint: Someone who did it also in WW II (more of that later)
>> >When activists within the Union of Ruthenians-Ukrainians in Yugoslavia
>> >(in Vojvodina) protested these actions, they were repressed by Serb
>> >authorities.
>>
>> This is only thing that authorities of Serbia can be blamed for in this
post
>> of yours. Repressed in what way?
>
>Many of them were exiled. They were threatened with mass exile. So now
>they keep quiet.
I must say that I have not heard anything of this, but I would like to know
more.
>> >I doubt that Austria was even close to Serbia in terms of its cruelty.
>>
>> You said almost nothing about Serbia (Vojvodina) but was refering to
Bosnia
>> and Croatia.
>
>Ok. I doubt Austria was even close to Bosnian and Croatian Serb
governments
>in terms of cruelty.
You are just pathetic, you know nothing of the way the Serbs were treated in
A-H, religious assimilation (Uniatism), cultural repression (denial of
identity) and political manipulation between the Austrians, Hungarians and
Croats and use of Serbs in Austria's battles, something they might have been
engaged for, but not recognized for and not given the promised rewards such
as religious and cultural tolerance and political autonomy in Vojvodina.
Finally, I would like to mention something that might be of interest to you,
regarding those Ukrainians from Kozara (northern Bosnia), during WW II,
because they were Orthodox, they were indeed persecuted by the Ustashi Croat
divisions which went around killing Orthodox Slavs and if you also must
know, the Kozara region staged a great rebellion of those Slavs in 1942.
Because the Ustashi divisions were nothing more than futile child-murderers,
the Wehrmacht was called in, guess who was leading that specific division
which burned the Kozara to the ground, Kurt Waldheim, your dear former
Austrian president, turns out that among those 400 killed Serbian "rebells"
there were, I believe 7 Ukrainians.
There is your Austrian reoppression, of Ukrainians, just to your liking.
bab...@netscape.net
"Igor" <ig...@info-internet.net> wrote:
>
>
> Fat chance, he was seen as a softie and +ACI-Slavophile+ACI- by most Austrians
> who still believed that they, with a Slavic majority in their empire could
> keep on opressing them.
I agree - most of the establishment were against him. That is typical
of revolutionary figures. So what - he would still have been the Emperor.
>
> He would have extended the rights but not as much as most were demanding,
What were most demanding? Masaryk was willing to have Hapsburg protection
for the Czech people as late as 1915.
> as for the occupation of Serbia, I do not know, maybe he just wanted, like his
> peers, to subjugate it economically but I am certain that if he viewed that
> any revolutionnary or pan-Slav movement that could potentially ruin and
> parcel his +ACI-empire+ACI- then he probably would have even invaded Serbia.
Maybe....
> I am afraid to tell you that most Austrians, who were mostly
> +ACI-pro-punish-Serbia+ACI- despised Franz Ferdinand and were hoping somehow >
> to get rid of him, who do you think planned for him to have his visit on >
> Vidovdan 1914? That was an almost sure bet, get two stones with one - have an
> excuse to occupy Serbia and get rid of the +ACI-Slavophile+ACI-.
An interesting hypothesis. Serbian Prime Minister Pasic actually tried
to warn the Austrians indirectly (Pasic was opposed to the extreme
Dimitrijevic) - he could not reveal explicit plans however. Count von
Bilinski, Minister of Finance as well as of B-H, was given a vague warning.
He did not relay it on, however - allegedly due to a spat with Potiorek.
Was there a conspiracy?
Nevertheless, this possibility does not detract from Franz Ferdinad's
positive nature. It makes his death that much more tragic.
> +AD4-This did not imply a suppression of these people's cultural or
> +AD4-political rights.
>
> No, only the supression of their identity.
Was the Hungarian identity supressed? The Slavs could have had the same
rights as the Hungarians.
..........cut.............
> +AD4-Franz Ferdinand himself was categorically against the invasion of Serbia,
> +AD4-because he knew that the people there would never be reconciled to
> +AD4-an Austrian regime.
>
> Perhaps, when did he say that?
Here goes: in a dispatch from him to Chief of Staff Conrad during a
mobilization crisis was written:
"His Imperial Highness wishes your Excellency to understand that neither
he nor any Austrian patriot covets a square meter of Serbian ground. His
Imperial Highness is convinced that if we march on Serbia, Russia will
march on us. His Imperial Highness is further convinced that if we march
on Serbia, Russia will march on us. His Imperial Highness is further
convinced that war between Austria and Russia would encourage revolution
in both countries and thereby cause the Emperor and the Tsar to push
each other off their thrones. For these reasons His Imperial Highness
considers war lunacy. He considers preludes to war, like constant
requests for mobilization, preludes to lunacy."
At a dinner for his brother-in-law Duke Albrecht F.F. rather embarrasingly
raised his glass and toasted "To peace! What would we get out of war
with Serbia? We'd lose the lives of young men and we'd spend money better
used elsewhere. And what would we gain, for heaven's sake? Some plum
trees and goat pastures full of droppings, and a bunch of rebellious
killers. Long live restraint!"
In a letter to foreign minister Count von Berchtold during a crisis in
1913 he wrote "...God forbid that we annex Serbia. We'd spend millions
on keeping those people down and would still have a horrendous insurgent
movement. As for irredentists within our frontiers, the ones to whom
hotheads are pointing - all that would stop the minute we give our Slavs
something of a comfortable, just and good existence"
He also went to extraordinary lengths with the German Emperor to put
pressure on the elements within Austria to push restraint.
So Franz Ferdinand's assassination pretty much ruined hopes for peace,
and played into the hands of Austrian as well as *Serb* extremists.
He was a real hope to the small Slavic nations of central and Eastern
Europe.
Gavril Princip, who was even "nice" enough to kill F.F.'s wife,
does not deserve the status of hero for contributing to the destruction
of east-central Europe.
> Perhaps but I feel, that there is a difference, over here in Quebec, well
> actually, the situation is more like two separate countries Quebec and the
> rest of Canada in one alliance called +ACI-Canada+ACI-. French is the second
> official language, every Canadian needs to know a little and every sign
> needs to be bilingual, even in Vancouver or Calgary. Whereas in A-H you know
> what the case was, Slovak towns had Hungarian names and Hungarian only
> became official after I believe 1867.
Hungary was much more repressive than Austria - F.F. planned to enforce Slav
voting rights in Croatia by force of arms if necessary once he
ascended the throne - if Hungarian hardliner Tisza opposed this.
Of course, in a state with 10 or so nationalities rather than 2, it would
be impractical for everyone to learn all of them. Probably German would
have been used on a federal level.
> +AD4-Serbia refused Austria's demand to have its own police look for the
> +AD4-conspirators in Serbia.
>
> This would have been the lowest line of colonialism, Serbia did not say no
> but said that it would accept to it only after a ruling vy the Hague court
> according to +ACI-principles of international law and criminal procedures and
> neighbourly relations+ACI-. Serbia was ready to arrest half its populace to
> prevent war. Austria had set these conditions hoping to get a categorical
> refusal from Serbia, which they did not, so they said, what they heck, let's
> go anyway.
Ok....Austria was probably making an excuse, although the excuse seems to
have been justifyable. Austria should have accepted Serbia's compromise.
Of course there was no F.F. around to prevent this situation instigated
by Serbia's Chief of the Intelligence Bureau.
>
> +AD4-Although the link between Princip and the Serb
> +AD4-government was not established until after the war,
>
> Never established, the Mlada Bosna was armed by the +ACI-Black Hand+ACI-, an
> independent secret society whose actions were decided by Colonel Apis
Colonal Apis was the code name of Dragutin Dimitrijevic, Chief of Serbia's
Intelligence Bureau. The Black Hand was linked to the Serb government.
We even learned this in high school in the states (I assume the US
educational system is not somehow anti-Serb).
> while the Austrians, in their ultimatum, stated that +ACI-Narodna Odbrana+ACI-
> another association of former military officers but a governmental > >
association, wasguilty. In this, Austria was either ill-informed or trying to
> incriminate Serbia.
The Austrians did not have all of the information at their disposal. They
did know that Princip and his followers had crossed the border from Serbia
and were armed with Serb weapons;they could reasonably suspect the Serbian
government with complicity.
.............cut............
>
> You seem to be some sort of Triple Entente apologist,
I only support the best thing in Central Europe until the 1990's (brief
vacation of 1920's and 30's excempted).
> every modern historian
> accepts the fact that Austria itself was surprised at how much of the
> agreement Serbia accepted, it had made it that way to get a no to almost
> every clause and it got all ten +ACI-yes+ACI-.
True....this whole mess can be blamed on the Black Hand operated by elements
within the Serbian government, no less guilty than any anti-Serb fanatics
in Austria. The rough demands were a direct consequece of Serb complicity
in the assassination of Austria's Crown Prince and future head of state.
Babai
ps I may not have time to reply to some of your other posts soon. If
nobody else does, in a few days I will try to. I found them quite
interesting, however.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
bab...@netscape.net
davi...@oro.net (Mike Davidchik) wrote:
> In article <7bruif$aph$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bab...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> > independant of Roman Catholicism, has married clergy, Iconostas' in
churches,
> > uses Liturgy rather than Mass, etc. There has been conflict with the Roman
> > Catholic churches in Poland and in America.
>
> clergy and bishoprics,
sorry, that's what I meant....
> but recognizes the authority of the Pope. There is
> a conflict between Latin and Greek Rite Catholic churches in Poland, but
> not in North America. The Byzantine Catholic Church has its own hierarchy
> with its own bishops, patriarchs, and cardinals, but each recognize each
> other's liturgy and sacraments. Any Catholic in North America can receive
> the sacraments in either Church. There are several Greek Rite Catholic
> patriarchs in North America that
> report directly to Rome only. The only issue in North America is over
> ordaining married priests.
Well, that has led to quite a conflict. Especially early in the century
when many parishes went over to Orthodoxy over it. Excellent post
however.
Babai
>
> About 5,000 Macedonians belong
> > to the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Yugoslavia. There might be something to
> > your comments, however, as the Czech organizations were especially helpful
to
> > Ukrainian refugees.
>
> The Greek Rite Catholic Church has been revived in Czech and Slovakia
> (with the help of the Vatican). An interesting sidelight is that a number
> of married priests were secretly ordained in the Roman Catholic Church
> because the Byzantine Catholic Church was outlawed. Later, when the Greek
> Rite was revived, they transferred to it.
>
> > > Was these churches Catholic?
> >
> > See above. They certainly weren't Roman Catholic. In Ukraine that Church
> > was traditionally a bastion of Ukrainian nationalism vs. Catholic Poland,
> > and was persecuted by Catholic Poles.
>
> It was persecuted by Poles in Poland, but persecuted by the Soviets all
> over Eastern Europe. The Poles did nothing compared to the Russians and
> their kindred to wipe out the Greek Rite Catholic Church.
> Austria-Hungary, although Catholic, practiced much religious toleration.
> If it were not for A-H, there probably would be no Ukrainian Catholic
> Church in Western Ukraine today. In the areas partitioned to Russia, it
> was forcibly incorporated into the Russian Orthodox Church with their
> churches given away and priests killed or imprisoned.
> The Uniates were a bastion of nationalism in Ukraine and Belarus...that's
> why the Russians and Communists got rid of them. It was outlawed in
> Russian controlled areas as early as the 1840s and, later, in the 20th
> Century by the Soviets. In Belarus and the Eastern Ukraine almost all
> priests were killed, imprisoned, or had to escape to the West.
>
> > Why would Ukrainians in the center of Serb-controlled land (such as Banja
> > Luka) take sides in such a detrimental way? They are neither Serb nor
> > Croats.
>
> They would not have to take sides. If they were Catholic, they were
> automatically suspicious to the old Serb Regime.
>
> > > Hm, I wonder how trustworthy this sources are. Are this Catholic sources?
> >
> > They are Ukrainian sources. Some Ukrainians are Catholic, other Orthodox.
> > Practically none are Roman Catholic however. Religion is not much of an
> > issue - as long as it isn't foreign!
>
> This doesn't make any difference in the eyes of the old Commies or the
> Serbian Orthodox. They think that Greek Catholics are just Roman
> Catholics in disguise. If they aren't Serbian Orthodox, they are the
> enemy. Unfortunately, this is the opinion in most of the old Commie
> world. Byzantine or Ukrainian Catholics never refer to themselves as
> "Uniates." This terminology is used by the Eastern Orthodox.
>
> Mike
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
bab...@netscape.net
this point later:
> Finally, I would like to mention something that might be of interest to you,
> regarding those Ukrainians from Kozara (northern Bosnia), during WW II,
> because they were Orthodox, they were indeed persecuted by the Ustashi Croat
> divisions which went around killing Orthodox Slavs and if you also must
> know, the Kozara region staged a great rebellion of those Slavs in 1942.
> Because the Ustashi divisions were nothing more than futile child-murderers,
> the Wehrmacht was called in, guess who was leading that specific division
> which burned the Kozara to the ground, Kurt Waldheim, your dear former
> Austrian president, turns out that among those 400 killed Serbian "rebells"
> there were, I believe 7 Ukrainians.
>
> There is your Austrian reoppression, of Ukrainians, just to your liking.
Please to not confuse Nazis (among whom there were Austrians as well) with
A-H. Within a couple of years of this incident Franz Ferdinand's
two sons found themselves in a Nazi concentration camp where they were
regularly beaten by jeering Austrian and German Nazis.
For your information, there were also anecdotes of Waldheim (against the
orders of his superiors) sparing many Serbs.
Babai
Igor
babai1+AEA-netscape.net wrote in message +ADw-7bt0fc+ACQ-59q+ACQ-1+AEA-nnrp1.dejanews.com+AD4-...
+AD4-I will only make one point for now, and will try to address the bulk of
+AD4-this point later:
+AD4-
+AD4APg- Finally, I would like to mention something that might be of interest to
you,
+AD4APg- regarding those Ukrainians from Kozara (northern Bosnia), during WW II,
+AD4APg- because they were Orthodox, they were indeed persecuted by the Ustashi
Croat
+AD4APg- divisions which went around killing Orthodox Slavs and if you also must
+AD4APg- know, the Kozara region staged a great rebellion of those Slavs in 1942.
+AD4APg- Because the Ustashi divisions were nothing more than futile
child-murderers,
+AD4APg- the Wehrmacht was called in, guess who was leading that specific division
+AD4APg- which burned the Kozara to the ground, Kurt Waldheim, your dear former
+AD4APg- Austrian president, turns out that among those 400 killed Serbian
+ACI-rebells+ACI-
+AD4APg- there were, I believe 7 Ukrainians.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- There is your Austrian reoppression, of Ukrainians, just to your liking.
+AD4-
+AD4-Please to not confuse Nazis (among whom there were Austrians as well) with
+AD4-A-H. Within a couple of years of this incident Franz Ferdinand's
+AD4-two sons found themselves in a Nazi concentration camp where they were
+AD4-regularly beaten by jeering Austrian and German Nazis.
I am sorry to hear that but you are somehow trying to compare the behaviour
of the Austrian and Serbian peoples. You claim that Serbs acted in a worse
manner with the Ukrainian/Ruthenes then the Austrians with Slavs. I not only
challenge that but also claim and support that Austrians repressed
Ukrainians on the Serbs own turf.
+AD4-For your information, there were also anecdotes of Waldheim (against the
+AD4-orders of his superiors) sparing many Serbs.
For your information, I personnaly know a Partizan who fought against him,
some tried to justify his actions by saying +ACI-he was just a lieutenant+ACI- but
we know better, there were witnesses, those same witnesses got chills down
their spines when they saw him on TV, becoming the chancellor of Austria.
+AD4-Babai
Goran
Veliki Srbin te posmatra!
>In article <7brcp2$ctm$2...@zevs.beotel.net>,
> "Goran" <bos...@beotel.yu> wrote:
>> >I guess I fail to see the contradiction between freedom and "enlightened
>> >rule". Why can these not coexist?
>> Because it is not freedom if something you ought to have has to be given
to
>> you by an foreign ruler.
>"Freedom" exists regardless of the manner of its birth. Is Canada, which
>did not have to undergo a revolution and which still considers Elizabeth
>the Head of State, not free? Of course, in most cases freedom had to come
>at the price of blood - but if this was not necessary, it's a nice thing
>right?
It was not necessary for AH to rule over other people at all.
And was it necessary to AH Slavs to fight their NATIONAL liberation, freedom
of foreign rulers, is not up to you to decide about. If AH gave independence
to the all peoples that wanted it, it would be freedom regardless of the
manner of its birth.
"It is better for you if we rule over you, see, we'll even give you some
rights" is not freedom. Freedom of foreign rule.
And you can not compare land English colonized with land Austrians
conquered.
AH is not anything God given so they had to decide what ammount of freedom
is needed. They were just empire ruling other peoples.
>> >I agree that in a perfect world A & H
>> >would have been unnecessary...but it was not a perfect world (more on
this
>> >later)
>> Well, I am sure world and Empires were even more perfect in the past, but
>> changhes are what made this world more perfect.
>Yeah....changes such as Hitler's occupation of central Europe and slaughter
>of most of its Jews, Gypsies, many Serbs, many Ukrainians and Poles,
>followed by Soviet-Russian occupation for 40+ years are what made this
>world more perfect. Now after all of this bloodshed, after several lost
>generations, the lands of former A & H are where they were in 1918.
>Congratulations.
Changes as freedom and independence for all Austria and Hungary ruled
countries. And absence of central European and Balkans bully.
Germany and Russia were just empires same as AH was, what Germany did in
1940. Austria did in 1914. - attacked neighbouring countries because they
wanted to using some bullshit excuses. AH was ugly empire same as any other.
>> >I agree that ideally A & H would have been unnecessary (same for NATO).
>> >However, unfortunately, the small nations of central Europe were
surrounded
>> >by aggressive and hungry Powers - Turkey, Germany, Russia.
>> And conquered by Austria. AH was the same as other hungry powers.
>Totally wrong. Russia, for example, banned Ukrainian language in 1860's.
>Germany was much harsher towards Poles than was Germany and Russia.
You wanted to say "Austria and Russia"?
There were differences, I am sure. But they were just empires trying to
achieve their empirial goals over back of subjugated peoples.
>And do you think Serbs were even in a similar situation in Austria as
>they were in Turkey?
I am sure Serbs were in better situation in Austria then i.e. being dead.
But it is still not equal good.
Better is not equal good.
And "we know what is best for you and we are going to give it to you"
Austrian policy is just another way to rule over peoples that wanted to be
free.
>> >Alone, they could not (and did not) survive independantly.
>> Present map of Europe shows us that you are wrong.
>Yes....after millions dead and culture robbed for generations.
After one Great war AH started and other Germany started. It is not small
European nations fault but AH and Germany fault. There should be small
independent nations, there should not be evil empires. It is their fault.
Victims are not to be blamed for being attacked. Not even their existance is
excuse. It is not somebodies fault for being alive and weak but of that who
bullies him.
>Now
>they are trying to join E.U. - something similar to the Austria they
>prevented from forming.
With one small difference. Nobody asked them if they want to be part of AH
and AH was sure not made for their interests but for AH interests. They join
EU willingly and to protect their interests better, not some Belgian or
Luxemburg interests, but their own.
>Did you know, by the way, that Dr. Otto
>Habsburg (son of the last Emperor Karl) was heavily involved in the
>creation of E.U.?
I heard he was talkng some stupidities in European parliament about Serbs.
What do I care?
I do not care about good will of some monarch, EU is expression of
democratic wishes of peoples of EU countries, not some good will of some
descedant of monarch. Who cares about Otto von Habsburg? Who voted for him?
I did not. Were Belgians? British? Germans? Spanish? Portugese? What is so
big deal about him, his surname? Like I care, like anybody should care.
>And that there they were considering giving the
>Hapsburgs some kind of honorary title? (I read this in "The European"
>newspaper when I was in Paris in 1991, and don't remember more details
>about it. I think Hapsburg refused the title).
Can't you be more specific? This sounds totally out of mind to me.
>So at least one can say
>that, on some level, they have learned from their mistakes.
Who?
>> And such things as i.e. Balkan wars in which Turkey was defeated by small
>> nations of southern Europe are another proof that you are wrong.
>Turkey was the "sick man of Europe". I doubt those small nations could
>have done this without the approval of the other Powers, i.e. they were
>pawns.
This small nations did it without HELP of the other Powers. That is what
counts.
>> As I already said few times, AH was just another of those Empireas as
>> Russia or Germany
>Neither had nearly the same level of national rights, nor a plan to
>increase those rights.
Just another tool to rule over peoples that deserved to have their own free
national states. AH had no excuse for it's existance at all.
>> and it is question how would it evolve anyway, in some German
>> like Nazi state or regionalization would be replaced by desintegration.
>Well, the evidence I presented seems to strongly suggest the way it would
>evolve. Franz Ferdinand wrote that himself.
Possible but not so important. FF would manipulate people to keep controll
over them. Nothing so great in it.
>> But no matter what of this would happen, freedom of European nations was
>> better choice then any foreign Empire.
>The Empire would no longer be Foreign once all of the nations would be
>able to participate.
So it wouldn't be Austro-Hungarian Empire but
Austro-Hungaro-Czezh-Slovak-Slovenian-Croat-Serb-Romanian-Ukrainian-Polish
Empire? They would let all peoples to participate or just those who would
help them to rule easier over others?
You are really stubborn person. AH had no excuse for it's existance, peoples
should be free and decide freely on their destiny, not to expect mercy from
their Masters.
>> Princip did not start WW1 but Austria did.
>> As for future, we do not know in what way Austria would develop further.
It
>> is just your bias presumption that it would be better under AH then USSR.
>> Yes, they wanted to democratize their state, ok, possible, but who can
>> guarantee it would last long enough. Hitler won elections too in
>> democratic state.
>You're right - nobody will know. But the chances for a Hitler would be
>quite small.
Ok, but what about Mussolini or Hirohito like Empire? Suharto like? It still
would be natural German ally.
>> Freedom is always better then being ruled.
>Sure.
But?
>> USSR domination should not appear, but also AH should not exist further.
>> You can not justify one evil by another.
>AH was not really evil, in contrast to USSR or even puppet states after
>WWII. Ideally, Czechs, Croats, Bosnian Muslims, etc. could live in
>independant states. Unfortunately, the world is a zoo and the only
>hope of the weak is to unite against the strong. As long as that union
>is just (unlike USSR or perhaps Yugoslavia).
And unlike AH.
AH was just another empire just using other tools to rule over conquered
people. Nothing so great about them being good Masters. I bet there were
good masters even slave holders in South USA, but it still doesn't means
blacks shouldn't be free.
>Austria had a real hope of becoming such a strong, fair union of small
>nations.
Sure, AHCSCSSRPU empire instead of AH? I bet.
>Hapssburgs did not think in narrow "pro-German" nationalistic
>terms (hence Hitler's conflict with Austria).
I think Bismarck said that "Bavarian is mixture of Austrian and Human".
But whatever. Hapsburgs had different tools of ruling over people. Nice, but
not nice enough. Peoples should be free.
>If you recall, Karl I tried
>to become King of Hungary after the Empire's collapse (this did not happen
>primarily from Romanian-Yugoslav opposition).
I am not interested too much in that central European stuff.
Goran
Veliki Srbin te posmatra!
>In article <7brcp3$ctm$2...@zevs.beotel.net>,
> "Goran" <bos...@beotel.yu> wrote:
>.........cut............
>> >Serb troops destroyed Vukuvar, the center of
>> >Ukrainian life in the former Yugoslavia.
>> It was not Serb troops but federal Yugoslav army that was shelling city
that
>> was controlled by rebells. It had nothing to do with Ukrainians.
>Are you implying the federal Yugoslav army was not Serb dominated?
I am not implying anything. "Serb dominated" is often used phrase, but
pointless. It was still federal army.
>Serbia still calls itself Yugoslavia.
Union of Serbia and Montenegro is called Yugoslavia. And back then it was
federal army in Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
>> >Vasylii Sikorsky, president of
>> >the Union of Ruthenians-Ukrainians in Croatia, noted that Ukrainians and
>> >Ruthenians have experienced beatiungs, looting, food shortages, and
>> >pressure to abandon their homes.
>> I bet this Union in helped by budget of Croatia, and bias towards Serbs.
>> Probably their site was in Zagreb or some other Croat controlled part of
>> Croatia?
>Well, after Vukovar's destruction, most of the people who could moved to
>Zagreb; many have since left for Australia and elsewhere.
Same as many Serbs and others.
But if someone's site was in Zagreb during the fightings, it was most surely
Croat gov. tool.
>> >Deported Ukrainians and Ruthenians have
>> >also reported murder and torture at the hands of the Serb army.
>> a) it was not Serbian army
>see above:
And you too. It was federal army. Serb dominated is meaningless phrase.
Aren't Ukrainians mostly Orthodox?
Or you are refering just to Croatia Ukrainians?
Is that this Greek-Catholic church?
But it is probably what I said above. They took sides.
>> And as for deeds themselves, certain bad things happened during the
>> latest,
>> Balkans wars, but they are war crimes, not something you are trying them
to
>> be.
>I'm only writing that Serbs were certainly worse than Austrians towards
>national minorities.
And you are wrong. Check out status of minorities in Serbia in peace time,
not on war crimes that occured in vague circumstances and your source for it
is some pro-Croat organization.
>> >In Bosnia Ukrainians, who settled primarily in Derventa, Prnjavor (of
900
>> >Ukrainians living in this area, over 500 have been killed), and
>> >Banja Luka were forcibly conscripted into the Serbian army.
>> General mobilization was declared in Serb controlled aereas of Bosnia. It
>> appealed to all. We can not call it forcible conscription but
mobilization.
>> If someone refused it, authorities had to act. I am sure in bias media
this
>> was and couldn't be described in any other way but "forcible
conscription".
>> Ukrainians living in Bosnia just have to obey Bosnian laws same as any
>> other people.
>Were these Serbs obeying "Bosnian Laws"? Apparently, laws only apply
>when Serbs make them! And if you are a non-Serb, good luck!
Serbs were obeying laws of Republika Srpska. Other diversifications and
explanations would have to go to the nature of Bosnian conflict.
>> Damn, obediance has to exist in the army, what else? Deserting couldn't
be
>> allowed and if some of the troops are less trustworthy special attention
had
>> to be payed to them.
>It would seem the Serbs viewed the Ukrainians' lives as "more expendable"
>by placing them in cannon fire. If the Serbs really were worried about
>Ukrainian loyalty they would either have them do manual labor (where
>betrayal would be less costly - this is what Soviets did to many Western
>Ukrainians during W.W.II) or would, like Austria, treat them like
>human beings and try not to give them reason to be disloyal.
I couldn't agree. They probably weren't considered as trusthworthy enough.
It was bias, but it was war, one has to be careful. There were Muslims that
converted to Orthodoxy and fought in our army, freewilingly, but we still
were not trusting them. In war it is better not to take chances.
And I am not sure if they were used as cannon foder, it was just not smart
to put them to keep your back.
>> >Explosives planted in the Ukrainian churches of Prnjavor and Banja Luka
>> >destroyed them.
>> There were certain destroyings of such objects in latest wars in all side
>Does that excuse anything?
Nope. I am just saying that it is what happened, it was not result of some
anti-Ukrainian policy.
It is very possible that Muslim/Croat payed PR agencies were manipulating
and giving "informations" to that Ameryka-Svoboda thing.
Some of "Ruder & Finn" big shots was talking that they used that famous
story about Serbian concentration camps to get Jew simpaties to Croat
president, Holocaust appologist and Bosnian Muslim islamic fundamentalist
president. It is very possible they twisted the truth for Ukrainians too.
>Were Ukrainians anywhere in a position to destroy Serb churches?
Ukrainians had no major role in Bosnian war. If their church is destroyed it
is probably done by some redneck because it was Catholic.
>It seems that Serb rednecks were just trying
>to get rid of anything non-Serb.
Yep, there were a lot of bad things among us too. It is possible.
>I wonder if during WWI Austrians went
>around destroying everything Serb that they could find. They were not
>Nazis(or Serb-Nazis) however.
Bullshit. Read something about Austrian crimes in Macva i.e.
>> Was these churches Catholic?
>See above. They certainly weren't Roman Catholic. In Ukraine that Church
>was traditionally a bastion of Ukrainian nationalism vs. Catholic Poland,
>and was persecuted by Catholic Poles.
Aren't Ukrainians Orthodox?
And, as I said few times already, I am sure our rednecks had no idea of such
major difference between Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Carholic church.
They were rednecks among us too.
>> >When activists within the Union of Ruthenians-Ukrainians in Yugoslavia
>> >(in Vojvodina) protested these actions, they were repressed by Serb
>> >authorities.
>> This is only thing that authorities of Serbia can be blamed for in this
post
>> of yours. Repressed in what way?
>Many of them were exiled. They were threatened with mass exile. So now
>they keep quiet.
Hm, could you tell me more about it?
>> >In May 1993 the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry denounced the brutal abuses
>> >done by Serbs against ethnic Ukrainians. It reported that hundreds of
>> >them were found in concentration camps and that libraries, churches,
>> >schools, and many individual homes were destroyed.
>> Many objects in Bosnia were destroyed due to war.
>> But this about abuses has to be proved first, specificaly explained what
>> actually happened and determined was it Serbian anti-Ukrainian mood
(which I
>> doubt) or local Ukrainians just took sides in conflict and suffered the
>> consequences.
>Why would Ukrainians in the center of Serb-controlled land (such as Banja
>Luka) take sides in such a detrimental way?
I was talking about Derventa etc. If they were Catholic it is natural they
would join their Catholice brethren, Croats, their neighbours rather then
Serbs.
As for Banjaluka, there they probably weren't obeying laws, and Churches was
just - Catholic churches to rednecks.
>They are neither Serb nor Croats.
Many Bosnians took side in the war although not being Serbs, Croats or
Muslims. I was helping to one Macedonian few years ago to translate to
English his documents, for moving to abroad. He was in Serbian army although
Macedonian. When living i.e. among Serbs, it is possible they would join
Serbs. If they were living among Croats or Muslims they would join them.
Especially if they had something in common. I.e. mostly islamic Gypsies
often joined Muslims, islamic Albanians living in Bosnia too....
>> >They are now keeping somewhat of a low profile because they fear that
>> >continued pressure may bring about repurcussions in the relatively
>> >unscathed Ukrainian communities in Vojvodina.
>> I live in Vojvodina today and I can not say that I noticed some kind of
>> repercussions for Ukrainians.
>Do you know any Ukrainians there?
Actually no. But I know some Slovaks, Romanians and Hungarians, and I can't
see they are in danger. Also I haven't heard anything bad. How possible it
is that correct information would reach you in Canada?
>> >I doubt that Austria was even close to Serbia in terms of its cruelty.
>> You said almost nothing about Serbia (Vojvodina) but was refering to
>> Bosnia and Croatia.
>Ok. I doubt Austria was even close to Bosnian and Croatian Serb
>governments in terms of cruelty.
But Austrian soldiers in Macva sure were much close to Bosnian and Croatian
Serb's war criminals.
>> >If this is how "modern Europe" treats minorities one can only conclude
>> >that Austria was far more tolerant.
>> This is not how "modern Europe" or Serbia treats minorities. These were
>> extreme situations and it was war.
>> >The information here has been taken from Ameryka, the Ukrainian Weekly,
>> >Svoboda - and numerous personal accounts.
>> Hm, I wonder how trustworthy this sources are. Are this Catholic sources?
>They are Ukrainian sources. Some Ukrainians are Catholic, other Orthodox.
>Practically none are Roman Catholic however. Religion is not much of an
>issue - as long as it isn't foreign!
If you say so. But I still can doubt on their reliability.
Goran
Veliki Srbin te posmatra!
Croat
>> side during the war and therefore decided to share their destiny. It is
>> common in Balkans that nations cooperate according to their religion. It
has
>> nothing to do with anti-Ukrainian mood among Serbs.
>Eastern Europe is nothing new. Both the Yugoslavs and Russians did it.
Neither Russians or Yugoslavs did it. Yugoslav and Russian communists maybe.
And you can not blame whole people for policy of their dictators.
But I am interested to hear in what way UCC was persecuted in Yugoslavia.
>For some reason, Serbians think that any so-called "Slavic Brotherhood,"
>only includes Orthodox Christians. There are just as many Slavic
>Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, in the world.
This is oversimplification. You can not say such thing as "Serbians think
that....".
Slavic brotherhood has nothing to do with latest Balkan wars.
>They just were never allowed to freely exist in Serbia or Russia.
I can not tell about Russia, but as for Serbia - this is bullshit.
>> There were certain destroyings of such objects in latest wars in all
sides.
>> Was these churches Catholic?
>Is it okay to destroy churches if they are Catholic?
Nope. But read my answer to Babai.
>Can you blame
>Ukrianian Catholics if they wre sympathetic to the Croations?
I do not care. I just said that if there were some hostility to them from
Serbs, it was because they took sides.
>> >When activists within the Union of Ruthenians-Ukrainians in Yugoslavia
>> >(in Vojvodina) protested these actions, they were repressed by Serb
>> >authorities.
>> This is only thing that authorities of Serbia can be blamed for in this
post
>> of yours. Repressed in what way?
>They have always been repressed in Communist Europe.
You are mixing apples and oranges and selling me some paranoid story.
Communism is dead in Europe.
We are talking about present day Yugoslavia.
>> >In May 1993 the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry denounced the brutal abuses
>> >done by Serbs against ethnic Ukrainians. It reported that hundreds of
>> >them were found in concentration camps and that libraries, churches,
>> >schools, and many individual homes were destroyed.
>> Many objects in Bosnia were destroyed due to war.
>> But this about abuses has to be proved first, specificaly explained what
>> actually happened and determined was it Serbian anti-Ukrainian mood
(which I
>> doubt) or local Ukrainians just took sides in conflict and suffered the
>> consequences.
>Nonsense...the Serbs have been persecuting Catholics in Yugoslavia for
>fifty years. There was a policy of eliminating Greek Rite Catholics among
>the secret police of most of the Communist Bloc countries. Stalin was
>paranoid about the Vatican.
This is just bunch of bullshit.
Serbs weren't persecuting Catholics in former Yu. Communists probably
persecuted someone, i.e. Orthodox Church whose goods were confiscated. And
it was not even Serbian communists who were ruling Yugoslavia.
Your generalizations about "most communist bloc countries policy" is just
nonsence.
Stalin died during the fifthies. Which year do you live in?
And if I recall, he said "How many divisions does Vatican have?". Doesn't
sound like being paranoid.
>> >If this is how "modern Europe" treats minorities one can only conclude
>> >that Austria was far more tolerant.
>> This is not how "modern Europe" or Serbia treats minorities. These were
>> extreme situations and it was war.
>What a joke.
Not at all.
>> >The information here has been taken from Ameryka, the Ukrainian
>> >Weekly, Svoboda - and numerous personal accounts.
>> Hm, I wonder how trustworthy this sources are. Are this Catholic sources?
>So they are untrustworthy if they are Catholic sources?
Vatican was proCroat in this war, and I believe most of the Catholic
communities in the Europe, especially some Ukrainian Catholic emigration.
>How trustworthy are the Orthodox sources in this part of Europe?
Who is mentioning them?
>> >Offical records showed 36,098 Ukrainians in the former Yugoslavia
>> >(church records indicated as many as 45,000). That number has now
>> >been dramatically "cleansed".
>> So what is your point? Many former Yugoslav left too.
>The point is that nobody should be cleansed.
Ofcourse.
>They were probably cleansed
>not because they were Ukrainians, but because they were Ukrainian
>Catholics.
Were they cleansed or left willingly? Many Yugoslav of all ethnicites left
you know.
>Also tthe russified Ukrainians sometimes don't consider
>Ruthenians as Ukrainians and they know that.
You seem to see Russians everywhere. I do not know even who Rhutenians are
and I am almost sure my Serbian brethern had no idea either, and especially
about what "russified Ukrainians" think on them.
Probably "russified Ukrainians" consider Ukrainian Catholics as
"catholicized Ukrainians" or "Uniat Ukrainians".
>> But although you do not blame me personally, I can not take these things
>> said about Serbs anything but insults.
>> Especially since I am Bosnian Serb.
>> Serbs are not vicious, fanatical or cruel but people as any other.
>I agree with you that Serbs as a people are not worse.
Nice.
>But, they have
>worse leaders and a worse government and I would hardly take a criticism
>of the Serb leadership as a personal insult.
He was not commenting Serb leadership but just said "Serbs as colective".
>I hear posters say bad
>things about the American government every day on the Internet, but I
>don't consider that as a personal insult.
Naturaly.
Goran
>why the Russians and Communists got rid of them. It was outlawed in
>Russian controlled areas as early as the 1840s and, later, in the 20th
>Century by the Soviets. In Belarus and the Eastern Ukraine almost all
>priests were killed, imprisoned, or had to escape to the West.
Blah. Uniates were outlawed by Russians probably because they were installed
and instrumentalized by Russian enemies.
>> Why would Ukrainians in the center of Serb-controlled land (such as Banja
>> Luka) take sides in such a detrimental way? They are neither Serb nor
>> Croats.
>They would not have to take sides. If they were Catholic, they were
>automatically suspicious to the old Serb Regime.
You are mixing apples and oranges again.
What old Serb regime?
>This doesn't make any difference in the eyes of the old Commies or the
>Serbian Orthodox. They think that Greek Catholics are just Roman
>Catholics in disguise.
They are. For instance, Catholics in Kenya allow poligamy. If they forbid it
to the natives, they couldn't convert them. So they give some consesions to
Orthodox just to take controll over them and use them against Orthodox.
I.e. in Dalmacia and Herzegovina Serbs converted to Catholicism, but they
continued to practice one Serbian custom - to celabrate certain saint as
family protector. Converted Serbs continued to do so even as Catholics.
Catholics were mad because of that so forbid this custom and installed
holiday called "All Saints" for them to celabrate, because, whatever their
family saint is they can celebrate him in that day. But it was important to
break their ties with other Serbs.
>If they aren't Serbian Orthodox, they are the enemy.
This is bullshit.
>Unfortunately, this is the opinion in most of the old Commie
>world. Byzantine or Ukrainian Catholics never refer to themselves as
>"Uniates." This terminology is used by the Eastern Orthodox.
Incredible, after 90% percent of Orthodox Churches in USSR were destroyed
and after almost all it's properties in Serbia were stolen (worth some 30
billion dinars then) HOW DARE YOU to equalize Orthodox Church with
communists?
Mike Davidchik
> >The Uniates were a bastion of nationalism in Ukraine and Belarus...that's
> >why the Russians and Communists got rid of them. It was outlawed in
> >Russian controlled areas as early as the 1840s and, later, in the 20th
> >Century by the Soviets. In Belarus and the Eastern Ukraine almost all
> >priests were killed, imprisoned, or had to escape to the West.
>
>
> Blah. Uniates were outlawed by Russians probably because they were installed
> and instrumentalized by Russian enemies.
So you think it is all right to outlaw religious activity because they
were not pro- Tsarist or Soviet?
> >This doesn't make any difference in the eyes of the old Commies or the
> >Serbian Orthodox. They think that Greek Catholics are just Roman
> >Catholics in disguise.
>
> They are. For instance, Catholics in Kenya allow poligamy. If they forbid it
> to the natives, they couldn't convert them. So they give some consesions to
> Orthodox just to take controll over them and use them against Orthodox.
This is nonsense since the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church has
existed for centuries in many parts of the world. Several Orfthodox
countries in Eastern Europe united with the Catholic Church for
nationalistic reasons...to fight the imposition of both Polish Roman
Catholicism and Russion Orthodoxism.
> I.e. in Dalmacia and Herzegovina Serbs converted to Catholicism, but they
> continued to practice one Serbian custom - to celabrate certain saint as
> family protector. Converted Serbs continued to do so even as Catholics.
> Catholics were mad because of that so forbid this custom and installed
> holiday called "All Saints" for them to celabrate, because, whatever their
> family saint is they can celebrate him in that day. But it was important to
> break their ties with other Serbs.
The Catholic Church does not care if anybody wants to celebrate any saint
for any reason. All Saints Day has existed for many centuries in every
country of the world and certainly is nothing created for the benefit of
converted Serbs.
The Church has made some changes that I don't necessarily like either, but
I don't think it is any kind of conspiracy. Anybody can celebrate anything
that they want. You probably think that Catholics have Easter on a
different day to cut them off from Eastern Orthodox too. It is just a
difference of calendars. You can celebrate Easter twice if you want.
> >Unfortunately, this is the opinion in most of the old Commie
> >world. Byzantine or Ukrainian Catholics never refer to themselves as
> >"Uniates." This terminology is used by the Eastern Orthodox.
>
> Incredible, after 90% percent of Orthodox Churches in USSR were destroyed
> and after almost all it's properties in Serbia were stolen (worth some 30
> billion dinars then) HOW DARE YOU to equalize Orthodox Church with
> communists?
I did not equalize. The Russian Orthodox Church has always been an arm of the
Russian or Soviet Government and has not been independent since Peter the
Great. After being decimitated by the atheistic Communists, it was revived
by Stalin in the 1940s with most of the clergy being appointees of the
NKVD or KGB and being on government salaries. It now is back to trying to
have a state monopoly on Christianity in Russia by using Soviet type laws
against freedom of religion.
This has nothing to do with religious faith...it is power. Almost all
Eastern Orthodox outside of Russia, have always rejected any affiliation
with them.
I am not saying that they are as bad as Communists, but they have never
been in favor of freedom of religion and have always used government power
to prevent any other religious affiliation in Russian controlled
territories under the guise that they were always subversive. This
started in the 18th and 19th Centuries under the Tsars and got worse in
the 20th Century under the Soviets. The difference with the Soviets was
that they had no use for any religion, including Russian Orthodoxy, and
tried for awhile to wipe out all religion. The motivations for wiping out
all Churches were not entirely the same. They tried to get rid of
Orthodoxy to create an atheistic society. They wanted to get rid of
Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, because of their paranoia about alleged
foreign subversion. If Catholic or Protestant countries did this, I would
also
condemn it.
Mike
bab...@netscape.net
"Goran" <bos...@beotel.yu> wrote:
> +++++++++++++++++++++++
> >"Freedom" exists regardless of the manner of its birth. Is Canada, which
> >did not have to undergo a revolution and which still considers Elizabeth
> >the Head of State, not free? Of course, in most cases freedom had to come
> >at the price of blood - but if this was not necessary, it's a nice thing
> >right?
>
> It was not necessary for AH to rule over other people at all.
> And was it necessary to AH Slavs to fight their NATIONAL liberation, freedom
> of foreign rulers, is not up to you to decide about.
I have given examples of why it was...and you stubbornly insist not.
Do you have any facts? Nazi-Soviet occupations have been obvious
consequences of the disolvement of this "unnecessary" state.
> If AH gave independence
> to the all peoples that wanted it, it would be freedom regardless of the
> manner of its birth.
> "It is better for you if we rule over you, see, we'll even give you some
> rights" is not freedom.
A federal system would be rights......Do Quebecois, in a federal system
with unified military and economy lack rights? They too were "given"
these rights - did not join Canada (it was them the British Empire)
voluntarily - remember the Plains of Abraham. Yet, although they grumble,
they seem generally satisfied. At the Slav Congress of 1848, they sent a
letter written by the Czech leader Palacky to the nationalistic (and thus
anti-Austrian - as they wanted to dismember Austria and take the German
component) German congress. It said "Truly, if it were not that Austria
had long existed, it would be necessary, in the interest of Europe, in the
interest of humanity itself, to create her". Here's to the EU!
But I am repeating myself here.....
I think I have shown how Austria was essentially different from Turkey,
Russia, Germany, that Franz Ferdinand was basically a good guy with very
positive plans and thus unworthy of assassination by any decent
organization or individual, etc. etc. If you will add some more evidence
as Igor has done), or ask for specific information, I will be happy
to respond. But if you merely repeat your strong assertations with
disregard for the evidence, I'm afraid my time is simply too limited.
Anyways, good luck!
Babai
Oh, almost forgot.....
> >And that there they were considering giving the
> >Hapsburgs some kind of honorary title? (I read this in "The European"
> >newspaper when I was in Paris in 1991, and don't remember more details
> >about it. I think Hapsburg refused the title).
>
> Can't you be more specific? This sounds totally out of mind to me.
I'm afraid I don't remember all of the details. He was I believe
undertaking some anti-Nazi activities in Switzerland during the war, and
was a very strong activist, devoting much of his life (and whatever
influence he had), to the realization of the E.U. He felt that E.U.
was very much like the Austria that could have been I guess.I read this
on a Paris-to-Brusseles train years ago, and don't remember
much of the substance.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
bab...@netscape.net
"Igor" <ig...@info-internet.net> wrote:
>
> +AD4-A-H. Within a couple of years of this incident Franz Ferdinand's
> +AD4-two sons found themselves in a Nazi concentration camp where they were
> +AD4-regularly beaten by jeering Austrian and German Nazis.
>
> I am sorry to hear that but you are somehow trying to compare the behaviour
> of the Austrian and Serbian peoples. You claim that Serbs acted in a worse
> manner with the Ukrainian/Ruthenes then the Austrians with Slavs. I not only
> challenge that but also claim and support that Austrians repressed
> Ukrainians on the Serbs own turf.
Sorry, perhaps you misunderstood me. I was referring to the behavior of
the Hapsburgs and their people, not anyone of Austrian nationality.
Nazis were traitors to Austria, had nothing to do with Hapsburgs (in fact
they put Hapsburgs into a concentration camp) and were certainly not
acting on behalf of Austria. Those were German Nazi crimes, not Austrian
ones.
Babai
>
> +AD4-For your information, there were also anecdotes of Waldheim (against the
> +AD4-orders of his superiors) sparing many Serbs.
>
> For your information, I personnaly know a Partizan who fought against him,
> some tried to justify his actions by saying +ACI-he was just a lieutenant+ACI-
but
> we know better, there were witnesses, those same witnesses got chills down
> their spines when they saw him on TV, becoming the chancellor of Austria.
>
> +AD4-Babai
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
bab...@netscape.net
"Igor" <ig...@info-internet.net> wrote:
Some interesting info that I do not dispute....
............cut............
> What the heck are you talking about, the same was done to every single
> minority, "you are either with us or against us", and if you must know,
> there were no "Bosnian laws" but general mobilization was a law of Socialist
> Yugoslavia, all deserters or protesters to mobilization were to be arrested
> and prosecuted. You would be surprised to find out how many non-Serbs
> actually fought in the Serb military formations, Croats, Muslims and even
> "others" or as you call them, minorities.
>
> And by the way, do you see the difference between the Orthodox Ukrainians
> and the Uniate Ruthenes?
Where do you get this info about religion? I have a friend whose parents
were from Yugoslavia - a very nationalistic (i.e. not "Ruthene") Ukrainian
Catholic. Ukrainians came to what is now Yugoslavia from Galicia, which
is quite Ukrainian Catholic. In fact, a Ukrainian Catholic priest noted
8,000 Ukrainians in Bosnia in 1908. Also, the Ukrainian Catholic Church
was instrumental in maintaining the language, culture, etc. of the settlers
there. This work was headed first by Rev. Andrij Segedi and later by the
Ukrainian Metropolitan of Lviv and Galicia, Andriy Sheptytsky. A Ukrainian
monastary was even established in Kamenica. Maybe some individuals joined
some neighboring Orthodox churches, but that was not the norm.
Most Ukrainians and all "Ruthenes" belong to the eparchy of Kryzevci.
It counts 45,000 "Ruthenes", 15,000 Ukrainians, 10,000 Croatians and 5,000
Macedonians. Incidentally, do you know why there are Croatian members?
This church uses the old, Julian calender.
Incidentally, Ukrainians in Bosnia suffered a lot at the hands of Chetniks.
However, Ivan Seniuk-Vuiko, became a Yugoslav national hero for anti-fascist
resistance.
> The Ukrainians were mobilized simply because they
> were Orthodox. There is no anti-Ukrianian/Ruthene plot. OK?
No elaborate plot of course, just simple grassroots xenophobia.
> >It would seem the Serbs viewed the Ukrainians' lives as "more expendable"
> >by placing them in cannon fire.
>
> Oh come on! Most Serbs did not care whether they were Ukrianians or not, the
> same was done to Serbian deserters if you must know.
Yeah, but Ukrainians weren't Serbs! They were not involved. How would
you like it if, in the battle between Hells Angels and that other
motorcycle gang in Montreal (you wrote that you are in Quebec) one side
kidnaps you and forces you in front of the line of fire. It's criminal
isn't it?
> >
> >Does that excuse anything? Were Ukrainians anywhere in a position to
> >destroy Serb churches? It seems that Serb rednecks were just trying
> >to get rid of anything non-Serb. I wonder if during WWI Austrians went
> >around destroying everything Serb that they could find. They were not
> >Nazis(or Serb-Nazis) however.
>
> If you must know, yes. Austrians were noted for their savagery in World War
> one, especially in the Macva region of northwestern Serbia, the only region
> that they had managed to conquer after their third major offensive in a year
> of work of "destroying Serbia".
Banja Luka was not a war zone. This occurred in land outside of combat,
in other words it was pure terror on civilians. Did Austrians destroy
Serb churches, schools, monastaries etc. in Bosnia or other areas not in
a war zone?
> Churches were destroyed, civilians shot and
> hanged, and villages burnt to the ground, of course, the Croat "domobran"
> units did some of this but the regular Austrian divisions also had their
> part. As general Schturm, having served in the Prussian army and then in the
> Serbian army, said "the fathers and grandfathers of these soldiers would be
> turning in their graves had they seen how their country's army was
> behaving". War was once a gentleman's classy thing back in the 19th century,
> this of course changed after savagery was introduced by you know whom (anach
> ronically premature German nazis) in WW I.
As for combat zones, OK I'll concede that Austrians were as bad as Serbs.
But would you concede that Serbs were also no better than Austrians?
>
> They were persecuted by Catholic Poles but they were forced by those same
> Poles to become Uniates, anyways, the Uniates were so linked with
> Catholicism (their clergy was not educated in Catholic institutions) that
> some of them actually believe that they are catholics of "the eastern rite".
> I doubt it, Ukrainians living in northern Bosnia were precisely Orthodox and
> Ukrainians, therefore, you can guess for yourself who destroyed those
> Orthodox churches.
See my comments above:
>
> Hint: Someone who did it also in WW II (more of that later)
>
This was from I believe Ukrainian Weekly, January 1992.
Babai
> >
> >Ok. I doubt Austria was even close to Bosnian and Croatian Serb
> governments
> >in terms of cruelty.
>
> You are just pathetic, you know nothing of the way the Serbs were treated in
> A-H, religious assimilation (Uniatism), cultural repression (denial of
> identity) and political manipulation between the Austrians, Hungarians and
> Croats and use of Serbs in Austria's battles, something they might have been
> engaged for, but not recognized for and not given the promised rewards such
> as religious and cultural tolerance and political autonomy in Vojvodina.
>
> Finally, I would like to mention something that might be of interest to you,
> regarding those Ukrainians from Kozara (northern Bosnia), during WW II,
> because they were Orthodox, they were indeed persecuted by the Ustashi Croat
> divisions which went around killing Orthodox Slavs and if you also must
> know, the Kozara region staged a great rebellion of those Slavs in 1942.
> Because the Ustashi divisions were nothing more than futile child-murderers,
> the Wehrmacht was called in, guess who was leading that specific division
> which burned the Kozara to the ground, Kurt Waldheim, your dear former
> Austrian president, turns out that among those 400 killed Serbian "rebells"
> there were, I believe 7 Ukrainians.
>
> There is your Austrian reoppression, of Ukrainians, just to your liking.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
bab...@netscape.net
"Igor" <ig...@info-internet.net> wrote:
>
> >>Ukrainians have lived in Yugoslavia since 1745; their largest town,
> >>Ruski Krstur, is in Vojvodina.
>
> Those are Ruthenes, but OK we can call em Ukrainians if you want.
The only difference between these Ruthenians and Ukrainians is that the
Ruthenians migrated at a time when Ukrainians referred to themselves as
Ruthenians. They are the same people.
>
> I would like to tell you a story that I read in a book covering the history
> of Ukrainians. It was about a A-H official who was trying to make an example
> in order to discourage corruption in his empire, he then said something like
> "We can take an Austrian because the intelligentsia would then use it as
> ammunition against us saying that Austrians are becoming repressed in their
> own country, Hungarians are still sore from their national revival and the
> repression of their revolution, Czechs would just lash out, Croats and
> Serbs, that area is volatile enough and then he said, I know, and he asked
> his assistant, what nationality are you, do you have any non-Austrian blood,
> Ukrainian perhaps? The man responded, no Ruthene." That was used by the
> author, Paul Magosci to describe the situation of the Ruthenes in A-H they
> were used as scapegoats pretty much.
Firstly, this anecdote shows how seriously the Austrians took
minorities, and tried not to antagonize them.
More importantly, however, this anecdote, according to the very book you
found it in, was taken from a movie "loosely based" on the life
of Colonel Redl, the officer of part Ukrainian descent who was later
caught spying for Russia and being involved in a homosexual affair with
another officer (using the money gained from spying for buying expensive
apartments, pink handcuffs, nice cars and other gifts for the lover).
So that conversation probably never happened.
Incidentally, the Austrian, Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, author of the
S & M classic "Venus in Furs" was also from Lviv (Lemberg); the word
masochism is derived from his name. There must be something about
German-Austrian writers, Ukraine and sexual perversions I guess. Maybe
Yuriy Klen also has a dark side ? (just kidding)
In the same book you referenced there was also the quote "...finally the
Hapsburgs themseleves became undeniable symbols of unity and, in some
cases, national heroes for several of the empire's people...the point is
that despite its enormous heterogeneity, the Hapsburgs succeeded in
creating a sufficient number of unifying and integrative elements that the
Austrian Empire became an acceptable social and political framework for
most of its inhabitants up to and eve after the outbreak of World War I
in 1914." (Magosci)
Let me remind you that one of the first things that the Hapsburgs did when
they took Galicia was to severely curtail serfdom and introduce compulsory
elementary education for the Ukrainian peasants, in the vernacular
language of the people.
Let me also remind you that under the Austrians Lemberg became the cultural
center of Ukraine. The earliest history of the Galicia-Volyn, which
rightfully portrayed the Poles as occupiers and that had a "positive effect
in raising pride on the part of of the Ukrainians in Galicia with respect
to their own past" (also Magosci) was written by an Austrian, Johann
Christian von Engel.
Of course the Austrians tried to accomodate the Poles as well, and because
Polish power vis a cis Ukrainians was a central issue for Poles, Ukrainians
did suffer severe setbacks at times. However, in 1917 the Emperor Karl
promised full seperation of eastern Galicia from Western (Polish) and thus a
huge rise in Ukrainians' fortunes.
One more quote:
"While Ukrainianism was being suppressed in the Russian Empire, all the
fundamentals that make possible a viable national life - historical
ideology, language, literature, cultural organizations, education,
religion, and politics - were being firmly established in Galicia.
The Hapsburg rulers and their imperial administration may have used German
as a functional medium of communication, they did not associate themselves
with any one of the empire's nationalities. Ukrainians, therefore, could
exist within the socially and politically framework of a heirarchy of
multiple loyalties without having to give up their national identity.
In other words, a Galician or Bukovynan could be both a Ukrainian national
patriot and a loyal Austria Hungary subject. The Austro-Hungarian Empire
thus stood in marked contrast to the Russian Empire....." (also Magosci)
Many older Galicians fondly recall the days of the "tsysar" as Franz
Josef was called.
As for your anecdote, one of my relatives, a member of the Galician
shliakhta, served as a high ranking officer in the Emperor's guard, played
cards with the guy, and had nothing bad to say about him. This same loyal
Austrian later fought in Petliura's war of liberation against the Bolsheviks.
Babai
> Now let me clarify and get to my conclusion, truly, as Goran said, some
> Ruthenes (Uniates) did take the side of the Croats according to "religion"
> because their Uniate church, was actually closely linked to the Catholic
> church and composed of Ruthenes and Uniate Serbs who now identify themselves
> as "Croats". This is another fine example, there were many Serbs who were
> Uniatized and Croatized and carry the last name Petrovic or Popovic and
> clearly took the side of Croats, certainly, they were not treated warmly.
> Second, the Ukraine and Yugoslavia have set up excellent relations, the
> Ukrainian parliament has several times protested against the NATO threats
> and cultural ties are very warm, despite also the fact that it was thanks
> the Ukraine, that during sanctions, we got not so expensive gasoline and oil
> (Albanians would sell it at triple the price).
>
> And third, if you want repression, take a look at this fact, Slovaks also
> live all over pretty much the same areas as Ruthenes and in even greater
> number, can you explain why so many were expulsed by the Croats and that
> many even left for Vojvodina for fear of being killed and repressed by
> Croats? Simple, unlike their kin in the north, they are Protestants. Of
> course, to be protected from the Croats who were out for their blood, they
> sided with the Serbs and that's that, the multicultural societies of
> Slavonia and Vojvodina were divided into alliances according to religion,
> some did truly stay neutral, but many were divided and it stayed that way.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Goran
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Veliki Srbin te posmatra!
which
>> >did not have to undergo a revolution and which still considers Elizabeth
>> >the Head of State, not free? Of course, in most cases freedom had to
come
>> >at the price of blood - but if this was not necessary, it's a nice thing
>> >right?
>> It was not necessary for AH to rule over other people at all.
>> And was it necessary to AH Slavs to fight their NATIONAL liberation,
>> freedom of foreign rulers, is not up to you to decide about.
>I have given examples of why it was...and you stubbornly insist not.
>Do you have any facts?
What facts do you need? I do not have any, I jut believe that peoples should
be free and decide about their destiny freely.
Call me naive, but that is what I think.
>Nazi-Soviet occupations have been obvious
>consequences of the disolvement of this "unnecessary" state.
Nazi-Soveit occupations happened in France too, France was strong state as
AH would be. So, either Hitler would subjugate AH too or AH would be
Hitler's ally too.
And as I said many times, you can not justify one bad empire by existance of
another bad empire.
>> If AH gave independence
>> to the all peoples that wanted it, it would be freedom regardless of the
>> manner of its birth.
>> "It is better for you if we rule over you, see, we'll even give you some
>> rights" is not freedom.
>A federal system would be rights......Do Quebecois, in a federal system
>with unified military and economy lack rights? They too were "given"
>these rights - did not join Canada (it was them the British Empire)
>voluntarily - remember the Plains of Abraham.
I do not remember, never was there neither I do care about Quebec.
Quebec had chance to vote in referendum, AH subjugated peoples did not.
>Yet, although they grumble, they seem generally satisfied.
They say so in referendum, ok.
AH peoples was never asked.
>At the Slav Congress of 1848, they sent a
>letter written by the Czech leader Palacky to the nationalistic (and thus
>anti-Austrian - as they wanted to dismember Austria and take the German
>component) German congress. It said "Truly, if it were not that Austria
>had long existed, it would be necessary, in the interest of Europe, in the
>interest of humanity itself, to create her".
Oh mine..... who would take better care of interests of Europe and humanity
but German congress? Give me a break.
>Here's to the EU!
Have I already told you what little difference between EU and AH is?
I did, but I will repeat for last time.
AH was created to serve interests of Austria and Hungary. Peoples in AH were
conquered and forced to be part of AH.
EU is estabilished in voluntarily basis to protect interests of ALL it's
members. Governments can choose whether they will join or not.
Small differences but I consider them as important.
>But I am repeating myself here.....
Me too.
>I think I have shown how Austria was essentially different from Turkey,
>Russia, Germany,
Although they were twins, there were some indications AH would try to
improve status of subjugated peoples to rule them more easily?
Yes, you did, but I wouldn't call it "essentially".
>that Franz Ferdinand was basically a good guy with very
>positive plans
Well, we will never know what would he turn out to be or what would he be
able to do.
>and thus unworthy of assassination by any decent
>organization or individual, etc. etc. If you will add some more evidence
>as Igor has done), or ask for specific information, I will be happy
>to respond. But if you merely repeat your strong assertations with
>disregard for the evidence, I'm afraid my time is simply too limited.
I do not think my arguments are inferior to your presumptions at all.
>Anyways, good luck!
>Babai
>
>Oh, almost forgot.....
>
>> >And that there they were considering giving the
>> >Hapsburgs some kind of honorary title? (I read this in "The European"
>> >newspaper when I was in Paris in 1991, and don't remember more details
>> >about it. I think Hapsburg refused the title).
>>
>> Can't you be more specific? This sounds totally out of mind to me.
>
>I'm afraid I don't remember all of the details. He was I believe
>undertaking some anti-Nazi activities in Switzerland during the war, and
>was a very strong activist, devoting much of his life (and whatever
>influence he had), to the realization of the E.U. He felt that E.U.
>was very much like the Austria that could have been I guess.I read this
>on a Paris-to-Brusseles train years ago, and don't remember
>much of the substance.
Very nice. So they wanted to pronounce him Emperor of EU or some
Ambassadeur?
Goran
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Veliki Srbin te posmatra!
wrote:
>> >The Uniates were a bastion of nationalism in Ukraine and
Belarus...that's
>> >why the Russians and Communists got rid of them. It was outlawed in
>> >Russian controlled areas as early as the 1840s and, later, in the 20th
>> >Century by the Soviets. In Belarus and the Eastern Ukraine almost all
>> >priests were killed, imprisoned, or had to escape to the West.
>> Blah. Uniates were outlawed by Russians probably because they were
>> installed and instrumentalized by Russian enemies.
>So you think it is all right to outlaw religious activity because they
>were not pro- Tsarist or Soviet?
Nope. I am just presuming that if they were against Russians they were
prosecuted.
>> >This doesn't make any difference in the eyes of the old Commies or the
>> >Serbian Orthodox. They think that Greek Catholics are just Roman
>> >Catholics in disguise.
>> They are. For instance, Catholics in Kenya allow poligamy. If they forbid
it
>> to the natives, they couldn't convert them. So they give some consesions
to
>> Orthodox just to take controll over them and use them against Orthodox.
>This is nonsense since the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church has
>existed for centuries in many parts of the world. Several Orfthodox
>countries in Eastern Europe united with the Catholic Church for
>nationalistic reasons...to fight the imposition of both Polish Roman
>Catholicism and Russion Orthodoxism.
What is it Polish Roman Catholicism and what kind of threat ROC was to them
at all?
>> I.e. in Dalmacia and Herzegovina Serbs converted to Catholicism, but they
>> continued to practice one Serbian custom - to celabrate certain saint as
>> family protector. Converted Serbs continued to do so even as Catholics.
>> Catholics were mad because of that so forbid this custom and installed
>> holiday called "All Saints" for them to celabrate, because, whatever
their
>> family saint is they can celebrate him in that day. But it was important
to
>> break their ties with other Serbs.
>The Catholic Church does not care if anybody wants to celebrate any saint
>for any reason. All Saints Day has existed for many centuries in every
>country of the world and certainly is nothing created for the benefit of
>converted Serbs.
Possible. But I am not too sure that Catholic Church is so tolerant to
"nonbelievers ans schismatics". At least it wasn't in Balkans.
What is the point of All Saints day anywhy? Maybe it was created not just
for Serbs but for converted pagans as well?
>The Church has made some changes that I don't necessarily like either, but
>I don't think it is any kind of conspiracy. Anybody can celebrate anything
>that they want. You probably think that Catholics have Easter on a
>different day to cut them off from Eastern Orthodox too.
I do not. I am not that ignorant you know.
>It is just a
>difference of calendars. You can celebrate Easter twice if you want.
I know what is it about and I do not want to celebrate Easter twice.
>> >Unfortunately, this is the opinion in most of the old Commie
>> >world. Byzantine or Ukrainian Catholics never refer to themselves as
>> >"Uniates." This terminology is used by the Eastern Orthodox.
>> Incredible, after 90% percent of Orthodox Churches in USSR were destroyed
>> and after almost all it's properties in Serbia were stolen (worth some 30
>> billion dinars then) HOW DARE YOU to equalize Orthodox Church with
>> communists?
>I did not equalize. The Russian Orthodox Church has always been an arm of
the
>Russian or Soviet Government and has not been independent since Peter the
>Great. After being decimitated by the atheistic Communists, it was revived
>by Stalin in the 1940s with most of the clergy being appointees of the
>NKVD or KGB and being on government salaries.
Care to elaborate?
>It now is back to trying to
>have a state monopoly on Christianity in Russia by using Soviet type laws
>against freedom of religion.
Yeah, I am sure. That is why by that law SAME rights would be given to
Orthodoxy, ISLAM AND BUDHISM as well. I do not see this as monopoly on
religion.
>This has nothing to do with religious faith...it is power. Almost all
>Eastern Orthodox outside of Russia, have always rejected any affiliation
>with them.
Possible.
>I am not saying that they are as bad as Communists, but they have never
>been in favor of freedom of religion and have always used government power
>to prevent any other religious affiliation in Russian controlled
>territories under the guise that they were always subversive. This
>started in the 18th and 19th Centuries under the Tsars and got worse in
>the 20th Century under the Soviets. The difference with the Soviets was
>that they had no use for any religion, including Russian Orthodoxy, and
>tried for awhile to wipe out all religion. The motivations for wiping out
>all Churches were not entirely the same. They tried to get rid of
>Orthodoxy to create an atheistic society. They wanted to get rid of
>Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, because of their paranoia about alleged
>foreign subversion. If Catholic or Protestant countries did this, I would
>also condemn it.
Well, I must admitt that I do not know much about history of Russian
Orthodox Church and it's part in society.
But what I ment is - please talk about certain things, do not generalize and
speak about "Orthodoxy" or similar.
M|SKAMAN
Goran wrote:
> >Russian or Soviet Government and has not been independent since Peter the
> >Great. After being decimitated by the atheistic Communists, it was revived
> >by Stalin in the 1940s with most of the clergy being appointees of the
> >NKVD or KGB and being on government salaries.
>
> Care to elaborate?
This is partially true. Many priests in churches in USSR were KGB
informants/agents because up until mid 1980s ANY kind of religion was persecuted
in USSR.
Even Igot Taljkov used to sing about it... before they killed him.
--
Remove REMOVETHIS from return address when replying.
M|SKAMAN
bab...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> > Oh come on! Most Serbs did not care whether they were Ukrianians or not, the
> > same was done to Serbian deserters if you must know.
>
> Yeah, but Ukrainians weren't Serbs! They were not involved. How would
> you like it if, in the battle between Hells Angels and that other
> motorcycle gang in Montreal (you wrote that you are in Quebec) one side
> kidnaps you and forces you in front of the line of fire. It's criminal
> isn't it?
Is this so hard to understand?! Those Ukrainians were citizens of SFRJ and later
of Bosnia. General mobilization was announced. Therefore it was Bosnian
Ukrainian's OBLIGATION AS CITIZENS OF BOSNIA to join the army.
>
bab...@netscape.net
misk...@beerREMOVETHIS.com wrote:
>
>
> Is this so hard to understand?! Those Ukrainians were citizens of SFRJ and
later
> of Bosnia. General mobilization was announced. Therefore it was Bosnian
> Ukrainian's OBLIGATION AS CITIZENS OF BOSNIA to join the army.
Perhaps I am mistaken.....but were the Bosnian Serbs not rebels against the
Bosnian State? Was their army the legitimate one?
Babai
bab...@netscape.net
"Goran" <bos...@beotel.yu> wrote:
>
> >I have given examples of why it was...and you stubbornly insist not.
> >Do you have any facts?
>
Facts showing that A-H was some sort of German imperialist state....
The facts I have provided seem to indicate othrwise, and moreover that there
was a definate trend towards greater equality.
> I do not have any, I jut believe that peoples should
> be free and decide about their destiny freely.
> Call me naive, but that is what I think.
I agree.
> >Nazi-Soviet occupations have been obvious
> >consequences of the disolvement of this "unnecessary" state.
>
> Nazi-Soveit occupations happened in France too, France was strong state as
> AH would be. So, either Hitler would subjugate AH too or AH would be
> Hitler's ally too.
Who knows? BTW, most historians agree that in 1936 Hitler would have backed
down from rearming the Rhineland if France had stood its ground. Between
1936 and 1939 Hitler absorbed Austria, Czechoslovakia, forged alliances with
Hungary and Romania, and divided the rest witht he USSR, thus securing the
eastern border. He also made peace with Italy (the two were rivals). In
1939 he was in a much stronger position than would have been possible had
Austria-Hungary existed. Moreover, at the time of the invasion of France he
basically controlled an area of land equal in size that of a would-be
Austro-Hungarian ally anyways. It is unlikely that Hitler would have been
able to accomplish all of this with a strong state in central Europe.
Remember, that it would have been quite likely that A-H would have allied
itself with France (Karl was willing to recognize French claims to
Alscasce-Lorraine and even switch sides in W.W.I if you recall) or with Italy
(the anti-Nazi Dollfuss regime had close ties with Mussolini, although for
Italy a small weak state such as Austria was an expendable ally, as
Czechoslovakia was for France).
So, an obvious likely scenario:
Germany would have not have been in a position for territorial revisions
creating a system of shifting or varying alliances not unlike pre-W.W.I
Europe; a balance of power of some sort would have been maintained and Europe
would have known a peace similar to the one that had existed for 100 years
prior to W.W.I.
Of course I admit this is all speculation. Do do you think things could have
been worse than the Hitler/Stalin occupation of Europe for 40+ years?
> And as I said many times, you can not justify one bad empire by existance of
> another bad empire.
But my facts have shown that Austria was not so "bad"! Do you have evidense
for the contrary?
> >A federal system would be rights......Do Quebecois, in a federal system
> >with unified military and economy lack rights? They too were "given"
> >these rights - did not join Canada (it was them the British Empire)
> >voluntarily - remember the Plains of Abraham.
>
> I do not remember, never was there neither I do care about Quebec.
> Quebec had chance to vote in referendum, AH subjugated peoples did not.
Did they vote against it though? Representatives of the various nationalities
supported Hapsburg protection until 1915. France and the west vigorously
lobbied for separation. Yet, the nature of their promises were quite clear
in 1938 in Munich. Guarentees from France were nothing compared to membership
in a multinational state.
> >Yet, although they grumble, they seem generally satisfied.
>
> They say so in referendum, ok.
> AH peoples was never asked.
Oh? See my previous comments.
> >At the Slav Congress of 1848, they sent a
> >letter written by the Czech leader Palacky to the nationalistic (and thus
> >anti-Austrian - as they wanted to dismember Austria and take the German
> >component) German congress. It said "Truly, if it were not that Austria
> >had long existed, it would be necessary, in the interest of Europe, in the
> >interest of humanity itself, to create her".
>
> Oh mine..... who would take better care of interests of Europe and humanity
> but German congress? Give me a break.
Maybe you misunderstood that. The SLAV congress wrote to the German one.
The SLAV CONGRESS wrote "Truly, if it were not that Austria
had long existed, it would be necessary, in the interest of Europe, in the
interest of humanity itself, to create her".
This was a protest against the German nationalist idea of uniting all of the
German people in one state, thus dismembering Austria. These Slavs did not
want Austria split apart. The German congress opposed multinational states,
the Slav congress was for them.
I refer you to my post on "Ukrainians in Austria-Hunagry" for more
information.
> >Here's to the EU!
>
> Have I already told you what little difference between EU and AH is?
> I did, but I will repeat for last time.
> AH was created to serve interests of Austria and Hungary. Peoples in AH were
> conquered and forced to be part of AH.
Once again, the facts I have presented seem to contradict much of this.
> EU is estabilished in voluntarily basis to protect interests of ALL it's
> members. Governments can choose whether they will join or not.
> Small differences but I consider them as important.
>
> >But I am repeating myself here.....
>
> Me too.
>
> >I think I have shown how Austria was essentially different from Turkey,
> >Russia, Germany,
>
> Although they were twins, there were some indications AH would try to
> improve status of subjugated peoples to rule them more easily?
> Yes, you did, but I wouldn't call it "essentially".
Please see my "Ukrainians in Austria-Hungary" post....
>
> >that Franz Ferdinand was basically a good guy with very
> >positive plans
>
> Well, we will never know what would he turn out to be or what would he be
> able to do.
We can get a good idea however.
> >
> >I'm afraid I don't remember all of the details. He was I believe
> >undertaking some anti-Nazi activities in Switzerland during the war, and
> >was a very strong activist, devoting much of his life (and whatever
> >influence he had), to the realization of the E.U. He felt that E.U.
> >was very much like the Austria that could have been I guess.I read this
> >on a Paris-to-Brusseles train years ago, and don't remember
> >much of the substance.
>
> Very nice. So they wanted to pronounce him Emperor of EU or some
> Ambassadeur?
They were actually considering some kind of position, perhaps Ambassadorial
but I thought more along the lines of a monarchy of some sort (obviously with
no power - like the British Queen perhaps). Even if Otto von Hapsburg would
have agreed to it, this probably would not have happened. There was no
official invitation. The fact that it was being seriously considered,
however (the article was devoted to the question), seems to indicate a high
regard for the man and for the idea of A-H in many circles in Europe. Again,
I refer you to that other post I wrote.
Do you think it possible that the educational system in Yugoslavia painted an
unfairly black portrait of A-H?
Babai
M|SKAMAN
Goran, ellaborate more on this for Babail.
bab...@netscape.net wrote:
> In article <36E43A7C...@beer.com>,
> misk...@beerREMOVETHIS.com wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Is this so hard to understand?! Those Ukrainians were citizens of SFRJ and
> later
> > of Bosnia. General mobilization was announced. Therefore it was Bosnian
> > Ukrainian's OBLIGATION AS CITIZENS OF BOSNIA to join the army.
>
> Perhaps I am mistaken.....but were the Bosnian Serbs not rebels against the
> Bosnian State? Was their army the legitimate one?
>
> Babai
>
> >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
peterpan
>
> bab...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> >
> > > Oh come on! Most Serbs did not care whether they were Ukrianians or not, the
> > > same was done to Serbian deserters if you must know.
> >
> > Yeah, but Ukrainians weren't Serbs! They were not involved. How would
> > you like it if, in the battle between Hells Angels and that other
> > motorcycle gang in Montreal (you wrote that you are in Quebec) one side
> > kidnaps you and forces you in front of the line of fire. It's criminal
> > isn't it?
>
> of Bosnia. General mobilization was announced. Therefore it was Bosnian
> Ukrainian's OBLIGATION AS CITIZENS OF BOSNIA to join the army.
>
> >
set foot in Bosnia!
peterpan
>
> It depends from whose point of view you look.
> Goran, ellaborate more on this for Babail.
No army has the right to kill off quarter million of their own ,people,
just because they wish to separate!
> bab...@netscape.net wrote:
>
> > In article <36E43A7C...@beer.com>,
> > misk...@beerREMOVETHIS.com wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > Is this so hard to understand?! Those Ukrainians were citizens of SFRJ and
> > later
> > > of Bosnia. General mobilization was announced. Therefore it was Bosnian
> > > Ukrainian's OBLIGATION AS CITIZENS OF BOSNIA to join the army.
> >
> > Perhaps I am mistaken.....but were the Bosnian Serbs not rebels against the
> > Bosnian State? Was their army the legitimate one?
> >
> > Babai
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
Igor
Mike Davidchik wrote in message ...
wrote:
+AD4-
+AD4APg- +AD4-The Uniates were a bastion of nationalism in Ukraine and
Belarus...that's
+AD4APg- +AD4-why the Russians and Communists got rid of them. It was outlawed in
+AD4APg- +AD4-Russian controlled areas as early as the 1840s and, later, in the 20th
+AD4APg- +AD4-Century by the Soviets. In Belarus and the Eastern Ukraine almost all
+AD4APg- +AD4-priests were killed, imprisoned, or had to escape to the West.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- Blah. Uniates were outlawed by Russians probably because they were
installed
+AD4APg- and instrumentalized by Russian enemies.
+AD4-
+AD4-So you think it is all right to outlaw religious activity because they
+AD4-were not pro- Tsarist or Soviet?
But the whole process of Uniates was created by the fact that the Poles
outlawed Orthodoxy. And as far as I remember, Uniates were given a choice,
join Orthodoxy or Catholicims in Russia, they massively went over to
Orthodoxy because had they become Catholics they would have had to modify
drastically their practices.
+AD4APg- +AD4-This doesn't make any difference in the eyes of the old Commies or the
+AD4APg- +AD4-Serbian Orthodox. They think that Greek Catholics are just Roman
+AD4APg- +AD4-Catholics in disguise.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- They are. For instance, Catholics in Kenya allow poligamy. If they forbid
it
+AD4APg- to the natives, they couldn't convert them. So they give some consesions
to
+AD4APg- Orthodox just to take controll over them and use them against Orthodox.
+AD4-This is nonsense since the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church has
+AD4-existed for centuries in many parts of the world.
As a result of the Vatican's actions, that's how they start, do you not
remember the fact that when Ukraine was taken by Poland from Lithuania
(change of +ACI-administrative+ACI- borders) the Uniates were pressured even more
into becoming Catholics, Poles did not even tolerate them being Uniates,
they want all Orthodox to become that way and then to become Catholics.
+AD4-Several Orfthodox
+AD4-countries in Eastern Europe united with the Catholic Church for
+AD4-nationalistic reasons...to fight the imposition of both Polish Roman
+AD4-Catholicism and Russion Orthodoxism.
Which ones united for nationalistic reasons to fight Russian Orthodoxy?
+AD4APg- I.e. in Dalmacia and Herzegovina Serbs converted to Catholicism, but they
+AD4APg- continued to practice one Serbian custom - to celabrate certain saint as
+AD4APg- family protector. Converted Serbs continued to do so even as Catholics.
+AD4APg- Catholics were mad because of that so forbid this custom and installed
+AD4APg- holiday called +ACI-All Saints+ACI- for them to celabrate, because, whatever
their
+AD4APg- family saint is they can celebrate him in that day. But it was important
to
+AD4APg- break their ties with other Serbs.
+AD4-The Catholic Church does not care if anybody wants to celebrate any saint
+AD4-for any reason. All Saints Day has existed for many centuries in every
+AD4-country of the world and certainly is nothing created for the benefit of
+AD4-converted Serbs.
Maybe not but it was used as an implement of assimilation. You can not even
imagine how persecuted the supposedly +ACI-tolerant+ACI- Austrians and Croats were
towards Serbs.
+AD4-The Church has made some changes that I don't necessarily like either, but
+AD4-I don't think it is any kind of conspiracy. Anybody can celebrate anything
+AD4-that they want. You probably think that Catholics have Easter on a
+AD4-different day to cut them off from Eastern Orthodox too. It is just a
+AD4-difference of calendars. You can celebrate Easter twice if you want.
No, catholics use a different calculation method, Easter is not a fixed
date.
+AD4APg- +AD4-Unfortunately, this is the opinion in most of the old Commie
+AD4APg- +AD4-world. Byzantine or Ukrainian Catholics never refer to themselves as
+AD4APg- +AD4AIg-Uniates.+ACI- This terminology is used by the Eastern Orthodox.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- Incredible, after 90+ACU- percent of Orthodox Churches in USSR were destroyed
+AD4APg- and after almost all it's properties in Serbia were stolen (worth some 30
+AD4APg- billion dinars then) HOW DARE YOU to equalize Orthodox Church with
+AD4APg- communists?
+AD4-
+AD4-I did not equalize. The Russian Orthodox Church has always been an arm of
the
+AD4-Russian or Soviet Government and has not been independent since Peter the
+AD4-Great.
Perhaps, but Peter the Great has not always acted in the church's interest
but rather manipulated it to follow his. Anyways, you know nothing of the
Serbian Orth. Church so not even compare.
+AD4-After being decimitated by the atheistic Communists, it was revived
+AD4-by Stalin in the 1940s with most of the clergy being appointees of the
+AD4-NKVD or KGB and being on government salaries. It now is back to trying to
+AD4-have a state monopoly on Christianity in Russia by using Soviet type laws
+AD4-against freedom of religion.
Well, that is because most of the real pious fled abroad, those who stayed
were either unlike, poor and unconcerned with religion or communism but
staying alive.
Prager
On Mon, 8 Mar 1999 12:57:04 -0800, M|SKAMAN wrote
(in message <36E4399F...@beer.com>):
>
>
>
> Goran wrote:
>
>>> Russian or Soviet Government and has not been independent since Peter
>>> the Great. After being decimitated by the atheistic Communists, it was
>>> revived by Stalin in the 1940s with most of the clergy being appointees
>>> of the NKVD or KGB and being on government salaries.
>>
>> Care to elaborate?
>
> informants/agents because up until mid 1980s ANY kind of religion was
> persecuted in USSR. Even Igot Taljkov used to sing about it... before they
> killed him.
>
You're funny guy! Can you read and understand your own writing...? If ANY
kind of religion would be persecuted in the USSR, there would be no priests
and churches, there would be no need to have some agents/informants there.
As far as I remember, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church was a member of
the Soviet Government, and the church itself owned most of the properties and
premises, they had their budget, income from operations... as well as taxes.
Did you ever visited Zagorsk...?
Igor
+AD4APg- What the heck are you talking about, the same was done to every single
+AD4APg- minority, +ACI-you are either with us or against us+ACI-, and if you must know,
+AD4APg- there were no +ACI-Bosnian laws+ACI- but general mobilization was a law of
Socialist
+AD4APg- Yugoslavia, all deserters or protesters to mobilization were to be
arrested
+AD4APg- and prosecuted. You would be surprised to find out how many non-Serbs
+AD4APg- actually fought in the Serb military formations, Croats, Muslims and even
+AD4APg- +ACI-others+ACI- or as you call them, minorities.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- And by the way, do you see the difference between the Orthodox Ukrainians
+AD4APg- and the Uniate Ruthenes?
+AD4-Where do you get this info about religion? I have a friend whose parents
+AD4-were from Yugoslavia - a very nationalistic (i.e. not +ACI-Ruthene+ACI-) Ukrainian
+AD4-Catholic. Ukrainians came to what is now Yugoslavia from Galicia, which
+AD4-is quite Ukrainian Catholic. In fact, a Ukrainian Catholic priest noted
+AD4-8,000 Ukrainians in Bosnia in 1908.
Is your nationalist friend your source on all of this? ARe you basing
yourself on his personnal opinion to form the opinion that +ACI-Serbs are bad+ACI-,
+ACI-Serbs are worse than Austrians+ACI-?
Yes, you are right, they were brought there from Austrian lands, they are
Uniates.
+AD4-Most Ukrainians and all +ACI-Ruthenes+ACI- belong to the eparchy of Kryzevci.
+AD4-It counts 45,000 +ACI-Ruthenes+ACI-, 15,000 Ukrainians, 10,000 Croatians and 5,000
+AD4-Macedonians. Incidentally, do you know why there are Croatian members?
Why do you place Ruthenes under quotation marks?
Those +ACI-Croats+ACI- were Serbs, I know about the Krizevci eparchy, that was once
part of Vojna Krajina, Orthodox Serbs still lived (until their expulsion in
1991) in Krizevci. Those Slavic Macedonians were probably refugees as the
Serbs, from Ottoman lands. See what was done to the Orthodox? Serbs were
massively Uniatized there by the Austrians specifically and also in
Zumberak, it was only years after the creation of Militar Graenzer and the
promise of +ACI-religious tolerance+ACI- by the Hapsbourgs that that was finally
achieved.
+AD4-This church uses the old, Julian calender.
I believe that all Uniate churches do.
+AD4-Incidentally, Ukrainians in Bosnia suffered a lot at the hands of Chetniks.
Incidentally, they suffered under the ustashi, for that, they rebelled with
the Serbs of Kozara and payed with their lives.
+AD4-However, Ivan Seniuk-Vuiko, became a Yugoslav national hero for
anti-fascist
+AD4-resistance.
+AD4-
+AD4APg- The Ukrainians were mobilized simply because they
+AD4APg- were Orthodox. There is no anti-Ukrianian/Ruthene plot. OK?
+AD4-
+AD4-No elaborate plot of course, just simple grassroots xenophobia.
Oh come on, give me a break, most Serbs do not even know that Ukrainians are
Uniates, I know that because I had an interest in that, when a Serb would be
told, +ACI-I am a Ukrainian+ACI-, he would say +ACI-sure, you're cool, Slav brother+ACI- but
the +ACI-Byzantine Rite Catholic+ACI- is not part of Serbian vocabulary, the very
word +ACI-catholic+ACI- brings back very painful memories, you might not get killed
but you will not be well recieved especially when the catholic Croats
accross the Sava are killing Serbs.
+AD4APg- +AD4-It would seem the Serbs viewed the Ukrainians' lives as +ACI-more
expendable+ACI-
+AD4APg- +AD4-by placing them in cannon fire.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- Oh come on+ACE- Most Serbs did not care whether they were Ukrianians or not,
the
+AD4APg- same was done to Serbian deserters if you must know.
+AD4-
+AD4-Yeah, but Ukrainians weren't Serbs+ACE- They were not involved. How would
+AD4-you like it if, in the battle between Hells Angels and that other
+AD4-motorcycle gang in Montreal (you wrote that you are in Quebec) one side
+AD4-kidnaps you and forces you in front of the line of fire. It's criminal
+AD4-isn't it?
True I do live in Montreal, but I would not have been placed in the
crossfire because I do not live in Eastern Montreal and because the Hell's
angels only place bombs, they do not have gang fights.
But the difference is that it was war, general mobilization applies to all,
I am sincerely sorry that anyone got caught in the crossfire but that is a
principle of war, I am sure that the same was done to Ukrainians and
Ruthenes living in Croat controlled territory. You can not try to transform
this into some +ACI-anti-Ukrainian/Ruthene+ACI- plot as you earlier on claimed or
even +ACI-xenophobia+ACI- since as I told you that people in the army were treated
according to accomplishment and effort.
+AD4APg- If you must know, yes. Austrians were noted for their savagery in World
War
+AD4APg- one, especially in the Macva region of northwestern Serbia, the only
region
+AD4APg- that they had managed to conquer after their third major offensive in a
year
+AD4APg- of work of +ACI-destroying Serbia+ACI-.
+AD4-
+AD4-Banja Luka was not a war zone. This occurred in land outside of combat,
+AD4-in other words it was pure terror on civilians. Did Austrians destroy
+AD4-Serb churches, schools, monastaries etc. in Bosnia or other areas not in
+AD4-a war zone?
Austrians destroyed Serbian churches, schools and killed innocent civilians
in areas that they occupied during the 1915-1918 period.
This was not about destroying non-Serbs but rather some idiots who wanted
revenge for example the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Western Slavonia and
Krajina, most catholic churches were bombed then, when the same and worst
was done to Serbian churches by Croats. Pardon me if the dynamite technician
does not know the difference between +ACI-Greek and LAtin catholic+ACI-, any
destruction is wrong, but this was not done out of +ACI-hate of Ukrainians+ACI- or
anyone else but rather out of +ACI-tit for tat+ACI-, since many churches could have
been destroyed from 1991 until 1995 but were not, if Ukrainian ones got
caught in the quagmire I am sorry but that does not reveal anything.
+AD4APg- Churches were destroyed, civilians shot and
+AD4APg- hanged, and villages burnt to the ground, of course, the Croat +ACI-domobran+ACI-
+AD4APg- units did some of this but the regular Austrian divisions also had their
+AD4APg- part. As general Schturm, having served in the Prussian army and then in
the
+AD4APg- Serbian army, said +ACI-the fathers and grandfathers of these soldiers would
be
+AD4APg- turning in their graves had they seen how their country's army was
+AD4APg- behaving+ACI-. War was once a gentleman's classy thing back in the 19th
century,
+AD4APg- this of course changed after savagery was introduced by you know whom
(anach
+AD4APg- ronically premature German nazis) in WW I.
+AD4-
+AD4-As for combat zones, OK I'll concede that Austrians were as bad as Serbs.
Austrians were worse than Serbs (a smart looser demands a compromise a smart
winner challenges that)
+AD4-But would you concede that Serbs were also no better than Austrians?
Hah+ACEAIQ- Was this the point of your discussion?
Should I start one for every single persecution of every single Slavic
people by the Austrians, starting with the Serbs?
Igor
babai1+AEA-netscape.net wrote in message +ADw-7c1l2u+ACQ-v3i+ACQ-1+AEA-nnrp1.dejanews.com+AD4-...
+AD4-In article +ADw-36E43A7C.C4BF05F+AEA-beer.com+AD4-,
+AD4- miskaman+AEA-beerREMOVETHIS.com wrote:
+AD4-
+AD4APg- Is this so hard to understand?+ACE- Those Ukrainians were citizens of SFRJ
and
+AD4-later
+AD4APg- of Bosnia. General mobilization was announced. Therefore it was Bosnian
+AD4APg- Ukrainian's OBLIGATION AS CITIZENS OF BOSNIA to join the army.
+AD4-
+AD4-Perhaps I am mistaken.....but were the Bosnian Serbs not rebels against the
+AD4-Bosnian State? Was their army the legitimate one?
This is the typical stuff fed on the media waves +ACI-Serbian rebells+ACI- and
+ACI-Bosnian government troops+ACI-. Do you also know that no one, except
Izetbegovic's followers recognized the +ACI-Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina+ACI-?
There were no rebels and there was no +ACI-legitimate+ACI- army. Basically, Bosnian
muslims declared the republic on behalf of everyone and hoped to dominate
it, the Serbs were the first to say no and the Croats did so later, after
they exploited the muslims against the Serbs.
Igor
babai1+AEA-netscape.net wrote in message +ADw-7bvti8+ACQ-e5m+ACQ-1+AEA-nnrp1.dejanews.com+AD4-...
+AD4-In article +ADw-7bs8th+ACQ-e9m+ACQ-1+AEA-pugsley.tor.metronet.ca+AD4-,
+AD4- +ACI-Igor+ACI- +ADw-igor+AEA-info-internet.net+AD4- wrote:
+AD4APg- +AD4APg-Ukrainians have lived in Yugoslavia since 1745+ADs- their largest town,
+AD4APg- +AD4APg-Ruski Krstur, is in Vojvodina.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- Those are Ruthenes, but OK we can call em Ukrainians if you want.
+AD4-
+AD4-The only difference between these Ruthenians and Ukrainians is that the
+AD4-Ruthenians migrated at a time when Ukrainians referred to themselves as
+AD4-Ruthenians. They are the same people.
No way, this is not about the Slavs calling themselves +ACI- Rus' +ACI- as even all
Russians once did but rather about the region they are from, Ruthenes are
from Carpatho-Ukraine and their dialect is more closer to Slovak while the
other western Ukrainians speak something closer to Polish. According to a
Ukrainian guy whose message I just read on s.c.ukr the Ruthenes voted 70 +ACU-
in favour of having autonomy and their own people status.
+AD4APg- I would like to tell you a story that I read in a book covering the
history
+AD4APg- of Ukrainians. It was about a A-H official who was trying to make an
example
+AD4APg- in order to discourage corruption in his empire, he then said something
like
+AD4APg- +ACI-We can take an Austrian because the intelligentsia would then use it as
+AD4APg- ammunition against us saying that Austrians are becoming repressed in
their
+AD4APg- own country, Hungarians are still sore from their national revival and
the
+AD4APg- repression of their revolution, Czechs would just lash out, Croats and
+AD4APg- Serbs, that area is volatile enough and then he said, I know, and he
asked
+AD4APg- his assistant, what nationality are you, do you have any non-Austrian
blood,
+AD4APg- Ukrainian perhaps? The man responded, no Ruthene.+ACI- That was used by the
+AD4APg- author, Paul Magosci to describe the situation of the Ruthenes in A-H
they
+AD4APg- were used as scapegoats pretty much.
+AD4-
+AD4-Firstly, this anecdote shows how seriously the Austrians took
+AD4-minorities, and tried not to antagonize them.
They just cared about what wold happen to them, but you see how they treated
the Ruthenes, and think about this, the Ruthenes and Uniate Ukrainians were
the most ardent supporters of Austria-Hungary and look how the Austrians
+ACI-loved+ACI- them back.
+AD4-More importantly, however, this anecdote, according to the very book you
+AD4-found it in, was taken from a movie +ACI-loosely based+ACI- on the life
+AD4-of Colonel Redl, the officer of part Ukrainian descent who was later
+AD4-caught spying for Russia and being involved in a homosexual affair with
+AD4-another officer (using the money gained from spying for buying expensive
+AD4-apartments, pink handcuffs, nice cars and other gifts for the lover).
+AD4-So that conversation probably never happened.
Whatever, but the author uses it as an example of how the Ruthenes were
treated, it was not about +ACI-gays and pink gloves+ACI- but an anectode which had a
purpose.
+AD4-In the same book you referenced there was also the quote +ACI-...finally the
+AD4-Hapsburgs themseleves became undeniable symbols of unity and, in some
+AD4-cases, national heroes for several of the empire's people...the point is
+AD4-that despite its enormous heterogeneity, the Hapsburgs succeeded in
+AD4-creating a sufficient number of unifying and integrative elements that the
+AD4-Austrian Empire became an acceptable social and political framework for
+AD4-most of its inhabitants up to and eve after the outbreak of World War I
+AD4-in 1914.+ACI- (Magosci)
Opinion of the author is meaningless to me as it deals with Austria-Hungary,
based on the Ukrainian (especially western one) point of view, A-H was god
and that is like, for example, using a historian of the Serbian people to
judge Russia, of course, in the history of Serbia, mostly the +ACI-good stuff+ACI-
was told.
PS, note +ACI-most of its inhabitants+ACI-.
+AD4-Let me remind you that one of the first things that the Hapsburgs did when
+AD4-they took Galicia was to severely curtail serfdom and introduce compulsory
+AD4-elementary education for the Ukrainian peasants, in the vernacular
+AD4-language of the people.
No doubt, as I said, they loved that country, my people also once once loved
it, despite its dark past, but then it all changed, somewhere around 1903
when Austrian imperialist intentions were visible even to the common farmer
who would buy gold ducats from A-H (it is a tradition in Serbia to give a
gold ducat for every child that is born, I have one myself, from my
grandmother, one showing the face of a Hapsbourg).
+AD4-Let me also remind you that under the Austrians Lemberg became the cultural
+AD4-center of Ukraine. The earliest history of the Galicia-Volyn, which
+AD4-rightfully portrayed the Poles as occupiers and that had a +ACI-positive effect
+AD4-in raising pride on the part of of the Ukrainians in Galicia with respect
+AD4-to their own past+ACI- (also Magosci) was written by an Austrian, Johann
+AD4-Christian von Engel.
+AD4-
+AD4-Of course the Austrians tried to accomodate the Poles as well, and because
+AD4-Polish power vis a cis Ukrainians was a central issue for Poles, Ukrainians
+AD4-did suffer severe setbacks at times. However, in 1917 the Emperor Karl
+AD4-promised full seperation of eastern Galicia from Western (Polish) and thus
a
+AD4-huge rise in Ukrainians' fortunes.
+AD4-
+AD4-One more quote:
+AD4-
+AD4AIg-While Ukrainianism was being suppressed in the Russian Empire, all the
+AD4-fundamentals that make possible a viable national life - historical
+AD4-ideology, language, literature, cultural organizations, education,
+AD4-religion, and politics - were being firmly established in Galicia.
+AD4-The Hapsburg rulers and their imperial administration may have used German
+AD4-as a functional medium of communication, they did not associate themselves
+AD4-with any one of the empire's nationalities. Ukrainians, therefore, could
+AD4-exist within the socially and politically framework of a heirarchy of
+AD4-multiple loyalties without having to give up their national identity.
+AD4-In other words, a Galician or Bukovynan could be both a Ukrainian national
+AD4-patriot and a loyal Austria Hungary subject. The Austro-Hungarian Empire
+AD4-thus stood in marked contrast to the Russian Empire.....+ACI- (also Magosci)
+AD4-
+AD4-Many older Galicians fondly recall the days of the +ACI-tsysar+ACI- as Franz
+AD4-Josef was called.
I know, I admit that you were the best they knew but it does not mean either
that your treatment of other peoples, namely the Serbs, was just.
+AD4-As for your anecdote, one of my relatives, a member of the Galician
+AD4-shliakhta, served as a high ranking officer in the Emperor's guard, played
+AD4-cards with the guy, and had nothing bad to say about him. This same loyal
+AD4-Austrian later fought in Petliura's war of liberation against the
Bolsheviks.
Didn't Petliura also collaborate with the Poles?
Mike Davidchik
<ig...@info-internet.net> wrote:
>
> But the whole process of Uniates was created by the fact that the Poles
> outlawed Orthodoxy. And as far as I remember, Uniates were given a choice,
> join Orthodoxy or Catholicims in Russia, they massively went over to
> Orthodoxy because had they become Catholics they would have had to modify
> drastically their practices.
The Poles never outlawed Orthodoxy in recent centuries. There has been an
Orthodox Church in Poland for a long time. Most of the Uniates were under
the protection of Austria-Hungary, not the Poles. The Uniates in Belarus
were founded due to the old Council of Florence and were protected by
Lithuania
as much as Poland. The seventy-six bishops in Belarus and Ukraine signed a
treaty with Rome to maintain their indepedence from the Russians. The
Poles interfered in the internal matters of the Greek Rite Church in
Galacia, but didn't mess with it as much in other parts of the
Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth. There were several Catholic religious
orders, particularly the Jesuits, who did not believe that the Latin Rite
was so important. Prior to the fall of Constantinople and the rise of
Moscovy, there were many Greek Rite Catholic churches in Asia Minor and
Eastern Europe, even in Italy.
> As a result of the Vatican's actions, that's how they start, do you not
> remember the fact that when Ukraine was taken by Poland from Lithuania
> (change of +ACI-administrative+ACI- borders) the Uniates were pressured
even more
> into becoming Catholics, Poles did not even tolerate them being Uniates,
> they want all Orthodox to become that way and then to become Catholics.
This was nothing compared to what happened after the partitioning of
Belarus to Russia. All of Ukraine was not taken from Lithuania by Poland
because Lithuania never had all of the Ukraine. Some parts of Ukraine were
always under Poland or A-H before taken over by Russia. The Uniates came
into existence during the heighth of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
> Which ones united for nationalistic reasons to fight Russian Orthodoxy?
Western Ukraine and Belarus
> Perhaps, but Peter the Great has not always acted in the church's interest
> but rather manipulated it to follow his. Anyways, you know nothing of the
> Serbian Orth. Church so not even compare.
This is true, but the Serbian Orthodox Churcch had nothing to do with
Ukrainians.
>
> Well, that is because most of the real pious fled abroad, those who stayed
> were either unlike, poor and unconcerned with religion or communism but
> staying alive.
This is why half of the CIS is atheistic or agnostic today. Those who are
nominal Orthodox, know little about their faith.
Mike
Mike Davidchik
<m...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> You're funny guy! Can you read and understand your own writing...? If ANY
> kind of religion would be persecuted in the USSR, there would be no priests
> and churches, there would be no need to have some agents/informants there.
Wrong. Stalin revived the Orthodox Church for "patriotic" reasons during WW2.
The Communists decided that it was easier to control it than eliminate it.
>
> As far as I remember, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church was a member of
> the Soviet Government, and the church itself owned most of the properties and
> premises, they had their budget, income from operations... as well as taxes.
> Did you ever visited Zagorsk...?
The number of churches and priests was regulated by the Soviet
Government. Priests were given the pay of a college professor and
required to swear allegience to the Soviets. The current
patriarch was a paid KGB informant. Under Khrushchev, the Orthodox Church was
reduced in size, again, at the whim of the Party. It has had its ups and downs.
Without taxes, it will have hard time operating. The donations are not large.
Mike
pete...@my-dejanews.com
>
> >
> > > Oh come on! Most Serbs did not care whether they were Ukrianians or not,
the
> > > same was done to Serbian deserters if you must know.
> >
> > Yeah, but Ukrainians weren't Serbs! They were not involved. How would
> > you like it if, in the battle between Hells Angels and that other
> > motorcycle gang in Montreal (you wrote that you are in Quebec) one side
> > kidnaps you and forces you in front of the line of fire. It's criminal
> > isn't it?
>
later
> of Bosnia. General mobilization was announced. Therefore it was Bosnian
>
murdering bunch of idiots such as Serbian chetnik terrorists!
>
paredon
pete...@my-dejanews.com
"Igor" <ig...@info-internet.net> wrote:
>
> babai1+AEA-netscape.net wrote in message
+ADw-7c1l2u+ACQ-v3i+ACQ-1+AEA-nnrp1.dejanews.com+AD4-...
> +AD4-In article +ADw-36E43A7C.C4BF05F+AEA-beer.com+AD4-,
> +AD4- miskaman+AEA-beerREMOVETHIS.com wrote:
> +AD4-
SFRJ
> and
> +AD4-later
> +AD4APg- of Bosnia. General mobilization was announced. Therefore it was
Bosnian
> +AD4APg- Ukrainian's OBLIGATION AS CITIZENS OF BOSNIA to join the army.
> +AD4-
> +AD4-Perhaps I am mistaken.....but were the Bosnian Serbs not rebels against
the
> +AD4-Bosnian State? Was their army the legitimate one?
>
> This is the typical stuff fed on the media waves +ACI-Serbian rebells+ACI- and
> +ACI-Bosnian government troops+ACI-. Do you also know that no one, except
> Izetbegovic's followers recognized the +ACI-Republic of
Bosnia-Herzegovina+ACI-?
>
> There were no rebels and there was no +ACI-legitimate+ACI- army. Basically,
Bosnian
> muslims declared the republic on behalf of everyone and hoped to dominate
> it, the Serbs were the first to say no and the Croats did so later, after
> they exploited the muslims against the Serbs.
>
SERBS DID NOT JUST SAY "NO", THEY SIMPLY STARTED SLAUGHTERING ALL MOSLEMS,
WOMEN AND CHILDREN INCLUDED!
paredon
Igor
peterpan wrote in message <36E46E...@powersite.net>...
>> Is this so hard to understand?! Those Ukrainians were citizens of SFRJ
and later
>> of Bosnia. General mobilization was announced. Therefore it was Bosnian
>> Ukrainian's OBLIGATION AS CITIZENS OF BOSNIA to join the army.
>>
>For a poofter you sure know alot of things, even though you have never
>set foot in Bosnia!
You might have set foot in Bosnia, peterpan, but Lipin has one big advantage
over you, he has something you never will - common sense.
GS
Mike Davidchik wrote:
> I
>
> Wrong. Stalin revived the Orthodox Church for "patriotic" reasons during WW2.
yes
>
> The Communists decided that it was easier to control it than eliminate it.
no, it was still persecuted after a short respite, large funds put into the
"scientific study of religion and associated journals and lectures, it was made
difficult for people to even baptize their children, was a bar to Komsomol
membership which was a key to university , future, certain jobs, etc., could lead
to persecution of family members, etc.
GS
troll post) but one question. WHere might one read about these Anatolian Greek
rite presumably ROman Catholic churches? You are not confusing with Armenian
Catholicate churches are you?
Mike Davidchik wrote:
> In article <7c1q4f$dqb$1...@pugsley.tor.metronet.ca>, "Igor"
> <ig...@info-internet.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > But the whole process of Uniates was created by the fact that the Poles
> > outlawed Orthodoxy. And as far as I remember, Uniates were given a choice,
> > join Orthodoxy or Catholicims in Russia, they massively went over to
> > Orthodoxy because had they become Catholics they would have had to modify
> > drastically their practices.
>
> The Poles never outlawed Orthodoxy in recent centuries. There has been an
> Orthodox Church in Poland for a long time. Most of the Uniates were under
> the protection of Austria-Hungary, not the Poles. The Uniates in Belarus
> were founded due to the old Council of Florence and were protected by
> Lithuania
> as much as Poland. The seventy-six bishops in Belarus and Ukraine signed a
> treaty with Rome to maintain their indepedence from the Russians. The
> Poles interfered in the internal matters of the Greek Rite Church in
> Galacia, but didn't mess with it as much in other parts of the
> Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth. There were several Catholic religious
> orders, particularly the Jesuits, who did not believe that the Latin Rite
> was so important. Prior to the fall of Constantinople and the rise of
> Moscovy, there were many Greek Rite Catholic churches in Asia Minor and
> Eastern Europe, even in Italy.
>
> > As a result of the Vatican's actions, that's how they start, do you not
> > remember the fact that when Ukraine was taken by Poland from Lithuania
> > (change of +ACI-administrative+ACI- borders) the Uniates were pressured
> even more
> > into becoming Catholics, Poles did not even tolerate them being Uniates,
> > they want all Orthodox to become that way and then to become Catholics.
>
> This was nothing compared to what happened after the partitioning of
> Belarus to Russia. All of Ukraine was not taken from Lithuania by Poland
> because Lithuania never had all of the Ukraine. Some parts of Ukraine were
> always under Poland or A-H before taken over by Russia. The Uniates came
> into existence during the heighth of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
>
> > Which ones united for nationalistic reasons to fight Russian Orthodoxy?
>
> Western Ukraine and Belarus
>
> > Perhaps, but Peter the Great has not always acted in the church's interest
> > but rather manipulated it to follow his. Anyways, you know nothing of the
> > Serbian Orth. Church so not even compare.
>
> This is true, but the Serbian Orthodox Churcch had nothing to do with
> Ukrainians.
>
> >
> > Well, that is because most of the real pious fled abroad, those who stayed
> > were either unlike, poor and unconcerned with religion or communism but
> > staying alive.
>
GS
Mike Davidchik wrote:
> I
>
> The number of churches and priests was regulated by the Soviet
> Government. Priests were given the pay of a college professor and
> required to swear allegience to the Soviets.
Clergy in Yugoslavia were also on the modified university system.
> The current
> patriarch was a paid KGB informant.
there was some also of this.
> Under Khrushchev, the Orthodox Church was
> reduced in size, again, at the whim of the Party. It has had its ups and downs.
> Without taxes, it will have hard time operating.
it has a couple cartels and a monopoly
> The donations are not large.
that is even true abroad if you look at the difference between how Greeks support
their priests compared to Russians.
>
>
> Mike
Dan Zikovich
trauma center after having a cell phone removed from his rectum. "My
dog Barry drags the thing all over the house," he said later. "He must have
dragged it into the shower. I slipped on the tile, tripped against the dog
and sat down right on the thing." The extraction took more than three
hours due to the fact that the cover to Peterpan's phone had opened
during insertion. "He was a real trooper during the entire episode,"
said Dr. Dennis Crobe. "Tony just cracked jokes and really seemed to
be enjoying himself. Three times during the extraction his phone rang
and each time, he made jokes about it that just had us rolling on the
floor. By the time we finished, we really did expect to find an
answering machine in there"
pete...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <36E43A7C...@beer.com>,
> misk...@beerREMOVETHIS.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > bab...@netscape.net wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > Oh come on! Most Serbs did not care whether they were Ukrianians or not,
> the
> > > > same was done to Serbian deserters if you must know.
> > >
> > > Yeah, but Ukrainians weren't Serbs! They were not involved. How would
> > > you like it if, in the battle between Hells Angels and that other
> > > motorcycle gang in Montreal (you wrote that you are in Quebec) one side
> > > kidnaps you and forces you in front of the line of fire. It's criminal
> > > isn't it?
> >
> > Is this so hard to understand?! Those Ukrainians were citizens of SFRJ and
> later
> > of Bosnia. General mobilization was announced. Therefore it was Bosnian
> > Ukrainian's OBLIGATION AS CITIZENS OF BOSNIA to join the army.
> >
> Do not see it how could anyone be forced to fight with the most despeakable
> murdering bunch of idiots such as Serbian chetnik terrorists!
> >
>
> paredon
>
Prager
On Mon, 8 Mar 1999 20:07:50 -0800, Mike Davidchik wrote
(in message <davidchik-080...@y55.oro.net>):
>
> In article <01HW.B309B1DA0...@nntp.we.mediaone.net>, "Prager"
> <m...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>> You're funny guy! Can you read and understand your own writing...? If ANY
>> kind of religion would be persecuted in the USSR, there would be no
>> priests and churches, there would be no need to have some
>> agents/informants there.
>
> it.
That's the point. The Orthodox Church wasn't eliminated, and the statement that
ANY kind of religion was persecuted is not accurate. However, there was a List
of about 50 different religious groups, denominations and sects which were
declared
illegal; among them were Baptists, Jehova Witnesses, etc.
>> As far as I remember, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church was a
>> member of the Soviet Government, and the church itself owned most of the
>> properties and premises, they had their budget, income from operations...
>> as well as taxes. Did you ever visited Zagorsk...?
>
> The number of churches and priests was regulated by the Soviet Government.
> Priests were given the pay of a college professor and required to swear
> allegience to the Soviets.
Yes, it was the Soviet Union. Those who wanted to become priests, they had to
study and pass an exam from scientific atheism at first, then the history of
the
USSR and Communism, only then they could finish their theology.
The current patriarch was a paid KGB informant.
I remember patriarch Pimen. If he was a paid KGB informant, I don't know, but I
really doubt it. Why...? Jeez, he was a member of the Soviet Communist
Government!
He was dealing with the head of the KGB like any other government member, on
regular basis. It was his job. There was no need to pay him for his
information.
Yet, the Orthodox Church was more independent that any other sector regulated
by
the government. It was the only institution in the USSR which would have its
own
properties and finances. BTW, the museum in Zagorsk (and others), all the gold
and
gems, all the historical books, everything there, it wasn't the property of the
Soviet government, but the church. In this sense, no other church in the
Communist
block had such position like the Orthodox Church in the USSR.
> Under Khrushchev, the Orthodox Church was reduced in size, again, at the
> whim of the Party. It has had its ups and downs. Without taxes, it will have
> hard time operating. The donations are not large.
Goran
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Veliki Srbin te posmatra!
M|SKAMAN wrote in message <36E4399F...@beer.com>...
>
>
>Goran wrote:
>
>> >Russian or Soviet Government and has not been independent since Peter
the
>> >Great. After being decimitated by the atheistic Communists, it was
revived
>> >by Stalin in the 1940s with most of the clergy being appointees of the
>> >NKVD or KGB and being on government salaries.
>>
>> Care to elaborate?
>
>This is partially true. Many priests in churches in USSR were KGB
>informants/agents because up until mid 1980s ANY kind of religion was
persecuted
Goran
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Veliki Srbin te posmatra!
M|SKAMAN wrote in message <36E43A7C...@beer.com>...
Goran
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Veliki Srbin te posmatra!
>> What facts do you need?
>Facts showing that A-H was some sort of German imperialist state....
Hm........................ I fail to see need for such facts. Anyone who
wants to see it can see it.
One question for you, why was not federation estabilished instead of
dualistic monarchy in 19th century?
>The facts I have provided seem to indicate othrwise, and moreover that
there
>was a definate trend towards greater equality.
Right for self-determination is better.
>> >Nazi-Soviet occupations have been obvious
>> >consequences of the disolvement of this "unnecessary" state.
>> Nazi-Soveit occupations happened in France too, France was strong state
as
>> AH would be. So, either Hitler would subjugate AH too or AH would be
>> Hitler's ally too.
>Who knows? BTW, most historians agree that in 1936 Hitler would have
backed
>down from rearming the Rhineland if France had stood its ground. Between
>1936 and 1939 Hitler absorbed Austria, Czechoslovakia, forged alliances
with
>Hungary and Romania, and divided the rest witht he USSR, thus securing the
>eastern border. He also made peace with Italy (the two were rivals). In
>1939 he was in a much stronger position than would have been possible had
>Austria-Hungary existed.
This all needes too much speculations. What would be AH interests in 1939.
if it still existed? Too much speculations and almost impossible to
determine strictly one thing or another.
>Moreover, at the time of the invasion of France he
>basically controlled an area of land equal in size that of a would-be
>Austro-Hungarian ally anyways. It is unlikely that Hitler would have been
>able to accomplish all of this with a strong state in central Europe.
Unless it would have some similar interests and be his ally.
>Remember, that it would have been quite likely that A-H would have allied
>itself with France (Karl was willing to recognize French claims to
>Alscasce-Lorraine and even switch sides in W.W.I if you recall) or with
Italy
>(the anti-Nazi Dollfuss regime had close ties with Mussolini, although for
>Italy a small weak state such as Austria was an expendable ally, as
>Czechoslovakia was for France).
It is impossible to determine what would happen really.
>So, an obvious likely scenario:
>Germany would have not have been in a position for territorial revisions
>creating a system of shifting or varying alliances not unlike pre-W.W.I
>Europe; a balance of power of some sort would have been maintained and
>Europe
>would have known a peace similar to the one that had existed for 100 years
>prior to W.W.I.
Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe AH would be in similar situation as Germany.
But I am sure it was better for peoples of AH to be free and not under AH
rule.
>Of course I admit this is all speculation. Do do you think things could
have
>been worse than the Hitler/Stalin occupation of Europe for 40+ years?
Maybe we would have Hitler's 40+ occupation instead of Stalin's?
Empires would always have reasons to fight wars. Who knows how many wars
would happen after WW2.
>> And as I said many times, you can not justify one bad empire by existance
>> of another bad empire.
>But my facts have shown that Austria was not so "bad"! Do you have
>evidense for the contrary?
It was still denying it's peoples right for self-determination.
>> >A federal system would be rights......Do Quebecois, in a federal system
>> >with unified military and economy lack rights? They too were "given"
>> >these rights - did not join Canada (it was them the British Empire)
>> >voluntarily - remember the Plains of Abraham.
>> I do not remember, never was there neither I do care about Quebec.
>> Quebec had chance to vote in referendum, AH subjugated peoples did not.
>Did they vote against it though?
You are some smart guy?
How could they vote against it if they had no chance to vote at all?
>Representatives of the various nationalities
>supported Hapsburg protection until 1915. France and the west vigorously
>lobbied for separation.
It was also wish of AH Serbs and Croats.
>Yet, the nature of their promises were quite clear
>in 1938 in Munich. Guarentees from France were nothing compared to
>membership in a multinational state.
Te be part of an Empire you mean? To be subjugated and therefore protected?
It is my humble opinion that solving problem of agressions is not
subjugating peoples.
>> >At the Slav Congress of 1848, they sent a
>> >letter written by the Czech leader Palacky to the nationalistic (and
thus
>> >anti-Austrian - as they wanted to dismember Austria and take the German
>> >component) German congress. It said "Truly, if it were not that Austria
>> >had long existed, it would be necessary, in the interest of Europe, in
the
>> >interest of humanity itself, to create her".
>> Oh mine..... who would take better care of interests of Europe and
humanity
>> but German congress? Give me a break.
>Maybe you misunderstood that. The SLAV congress wrote to the German one.
>The SLAV CONGRESS wrote "Truly, if it were not that Austria
>had long existed, it would be necessary, in the interest of Europe, in the
>interest of humanity itself, to create her".
>This was a protest against the German nationalist idea of uniting all of
the
>German people in one state, thus dismembering Austria. These Slavs did not
>want Austria split apart. The German congress opposed multinational
states,
>the Slav congress was for them.
Pardon me, my mistake. What kind of Slav congress it was?
>I refer you to my post on "Ukrainians in Austria-Hunagry" for more
>information.
I will.
>> >Here's to the EU!
>> Have I already told you what little difference between EU and AH is?
>> I did, but I will repeat for last time.
>> AH was created to serve interests of Austria and Hungary. Peoples in AH
>> were conquered and forced to be part of AH.
>Once again, the facts I have presented seem to contradict much of this.
Sure thing.
This is pointless.
>> >that Franz Ferdinand was basically a good guy with very
>> >positive plans
>> Well, we will never know what would he turn out to be or what would he be
>> able to do.
>We can get a good idea however.
We can just speculate.
(cut)
>Do you think it possible that the educational system in Yugoslavia painted
an
>unfairly black portrait of A-H?
Maybe.
But I still think that they were right teaching us that Serbs/Croats should
be ruled by Serbs/Croats and not by Austrians and Germans.
Sounds logic.
Goran
was as legitimite as Bosnian Muslim or Bosnian Croat one.
Serbs were not rebells against Bosnian state but against Bosnian Muslims
wish to rule over all Bosnia.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Veliki Srbin te posmatra!
M|SKAMAN wrote in message <36E46589...@beer.com>...
>It depends from whose point of view you look.
>Goran, ellaborate more on this for Babail.
>> Perhaps I am mistaken.....but were the Bosnian Serbs not rebels against
>> the Bosnian State? Was their army the legitimate one?
Goran
2-3 legal Bosnian armies.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Veliki Srbin te posmatra!
bab...@netscape.net wrote in message <7c1l2u$v3i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <36E43A7C...@beer.com>,
> misk...@beerREMOVETHIS.com wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Is this so hard to understand?! Those Ukrainians were citizens of SFRJ
and
>later
>> of Bosnia. General mobilization was announced. Therefore it was Bosnian
>> Ukrainian's OBLIGATION AS CITIZENS OF BOSNIA to join the army.
>
>Perhaps I am mistaken.....but were the Bosnian Serbs not rebels against the
>Bosnian State? Was their army the legitimate one?
>
>
>Babai
bab...@netscape.net
>
> This is the typical stuff fed on the media waves +ACI-Serbian rebells+ACI- and
> +ACI-Bosnian government troops+ACI-. Do you also know that no one, except
> Izetbegovic's followers recognized the +ACI-Republic of
Bosnia-Herzegovina+ACI-?
>
> There were no rebels and there was no +ACI-legitimate+ACI- army. Basically,
Bosnian
> muslims declared the republic on behalf of everyone and hoped to dominate
> it, the Serbs were the first to say no and the Croats did so later, after
> they exploited the muslims against the Serbs.
Point taken. So it was basically chaos: Serb armed gangs vs. Muslim armed
gangs vs.(later, apparently) Croat ones. So why the hell were these Serb
armed gangs pressing into service uninvolved parties?
The forced mobilization was not into a legitimate state, but basically into
one of these armed gangs. Like if suddenly the Montreal police ceased to
exist and the motorcycles gangs started grabbing anyone they wanted, and
forcing them to do the most dangerous, and thus deadly, work (like Serbs
placing Ukrainians into the front lines).
bab...@netscape.net
"Igor" <ig...@info-internet.net> wrote:
>
> +AD4-The only difference between these Ruthenians and Ukrainians is that the
> +AD4-Ruthenians migrated at a time when Ukrainians referred to themselves as
> +AD4-Ruthenians. They are the same people.
>
> No way, this is not about the Slavs calling themselves +ACI- Rus' +ACI- as
> even all Russians once did but rather about the region they are from, Ruthenes
> are from Carpatho-Ukraine and their dialect is more closer to Slovak while the
> other western Ukrainians speak something closer to Polish.
I know some "Ruthenes" -their language is quite close to Ukrainian - at least
a lot closer than say Bavarian dialect is to High German. Galicians once
referred to themselves as Ruthenes too, especially in the eighteenth century
(when Austria gained Galicia - which is why until 1918 Austrian official
documents referred to all Ukrainians as "Ruthenes"). With national
consciousness, Ruthenes began referring themselves as Ukrainians. The people
of trans-Carpathia, who were under Hungarian rather than Austrian
administration, were more limited in their educational and cultural
opportunities and thus their national awareness was more stunted (I have
already noted the more imperialistic tendencies of the Hungarian regime
within A-H).
> According to a
> Ukrainian guy whose message I just read on s.c.ukr the Ruthenes voted 70 +ACU-
> in favour of having autonomy and their own people status.
I would be very interested in seeing his source; perhaps he exaggerated. The
feeling seems to be about 50/50. In fact, the people of trans-Carpathia in
1939 declared an independent "Carpatho-Ukraine" government, that was invaded
by Hungary. It was actually the first state invaded by fascists.
>
> +AD4-Firstly, this anecdote shows how seriously the Austrians took
> +AD4-minorities, and tried not to antagonize them.
>
> They just cared about what wold happen to them, but you see how they treated
> the Ruthenes, and think about this,
It was an anecdote that probably didn't happen, based on an author's opinion.
> the Ruthenes and Uniate Ukrainians were
> the most ardent supporters of Austria-Hungary and look how the Austrians
> +ACI-loved+ACI- them back.
Again, opinion. I admit Austria compromised with the Poles to the detriment
of Ukrainians, but this reflects more on the fanatical anti-Ukrainian
attitudes of the Poles at that time than it does on the Austrians.
> +AD4-More importantly, however, this anecdote, according to the very book you
> +AD4-found it in, was taken from a movie +ACI-loosely based+ACI- on the life
> +AD4-of Colonel Redl, the officer of part Ukrainian descent who was later
> +AD4-caught spying for Russia and being involved in a homosexual affair with
> +AD4-another officer (using the money gained from spying for buying expensive
> +AD4-apartments, pink handcuffs, nice cars and other gifts for the lover).
> +AD4-So that conversation probably never happened.
>
> Whatever, but the author uses it as an example of how the Ruthenes were
> treated, it was not about +ACI-gays and pink gloves+ACI- but an anectode which
> had a purpose.
And it was based on opinions...
>
> +AD4-In the same book you referenced there was also the quote +ACI-...finally
the
> +AD4-Hapsburgs themseleves became undeniable symbols of unity and, in some
> +AD4-cases, national heroes for several of the empire's people...the point is
> +AD4-that despite its enormous heterogeneity, the Hapsburgs succeeded in
> +AD4-creating a sufficient number of unifying and integrative elements that
> the +AD4-Austrian Empire became an acceptable social and political framework
> for +AD4-most of its inhabitants up to and eve after the outbreak of World War
> I +AD4-in 1914.+ACI- (Magosci)
>
> Opinion of the author is meaningless to me as it deals with Austria-Hungary,
> based on the Ukrainian (especially western one) point of view, A-H was god
> and that is like, for example, using a historian of the Serbian people to
> judge Russia, of course, in the history of Serbia, mostly the +ACI-good
> stuff+ACI-was told.
But your reference was just as much of an opinion! I detect a bit of a double
standard. The facts concerning the gains of Ukrainians speak for themselves.
.......cut..........
>
> No doubt, as I said, they loved that country, my people also once once loved
> it, despite its dark past, but then it all changed, somewhere around 1903
> when Austrian imperialist intentions were visible even to the common farmer
> who would buy gold ducats from A-H (it is a tradition in Serbia to give a
> gold ducat for every child that is born, I have one myself, from my
> grandmother, one showing the face of a Hapsbourg).
Please explain this visibility of Austrian intentions in more detail.
>
> +AD4-Let me also remind you that under the Austrians Lemberg became the
cultural
> +AD4-center of Ukraine. The earliest history of the Galicia-Volyn, which
> +AD4-rightfully portrayed the Poles as occupiers and that had a +ACI-positive
effect
> +AD4-in raising pride on the part of of the Ukrainians in Galicia with respect
> +AD4-to their own past+ACI- (also Magosci) was written by an Austrian, Johann
> +AD4-Christian von Engel.
>
> +AD4-
> +AD4-Of course the Austrians tried to accomodate the Poles as well, and
because
> +AD4-Polish power vis a cis Ukrainians was a central issue for Poles,
> Ukrainians +AD4-did suffer severe setbacks at times. However, in 1917 the
> Emperor Karl +AD4-promised full seperation of eastern Galicia from Western
> (Polish) and thus a huge rise in Ukrainians' fortunes.
AD4-One more quote:
> +AD4AIg-While Ukrainianism was being suppressed in the Russian Empire, all the
> +AD4-fundamentals that make possible a viable national life - historical
> +AD4-ideology, language, literature, cultural organizations, education,
> +AD4-religion, and politics - were being firmly established in Galicia.
> +AD4-The Hapsburg rulers and their imperial administration may have used
> German +AD4-as a functional medium of communication, they did not associate
> themselves
> +AD4-with any one of the empire's nationalities. Ukrainians, therefore, could
> +AD4-exist within the socially and politically framework of a heirarchy of
> +AD4-multiple loyalties without having to give up their national identity.
> +AD4-In other words, a Galician or Bukovynan could be both a Ukrainian
> national +AD4-patriot and a loyal Austria Hungary subject. The
> Austro-Hungarian Empire +AD4-thus stood in marked contrast to the Russian >
> Empire.....+ACI- (also Magosci)
> +AD4-
> +AD4-Many older Galicians fondly recall the days of the +ACI-tsysar+ACI- as
> Franz+AD4-Josef was called.
>
> I know, I admit that you were the best they knew but it does not mean either
> that your treatment of other peoples, namely the Serbs, was just.
What do you mean "we"? My family Slavicised their name in the 1300's. Before
that they were some kind of Scandanavians, not Germans or Austrians.
> +AD4-As for your anecdote, one of my relatives, a member of the Galician
> +AD4-shliakhta, served as a high ranking officer in the Emperor's guard,
played
> +AD4-cards with the guy, and had nothing bad to say about him. This same
loyal
> +AD4-Austrian later fought in Petliura's war of liberation against the
> Bolsheviks.
>
> Didn't Petliura also collaborate with the Poles?
Once Galicia was conquered by the Poles, he recognized their authority over it
in exchange for aid against the Russians. He gave up something that was
militarily completely lost in exchange for preserving at least some of Ukraine
as an independent state. The Poles, of course, betrayed him eventually.
And went on to treat the Ukrainians in Galicia in such a shameful way that
any pre-1914 Polish complaints about the lack of rights under the Russians,
Germans and Austrians sound hypocritical indeed. It seems one of their most
important "freedoms" was the freedom to enslave Ukrainians.
It seems that subsequent Serbian behavior towards other southern Slavs
followed the Polish pattern as well. Perhaps one of the most important
motives was a desire for one's own imperialism?
bab...@netscape.net
"Igor" <ig...@info-internet.net> wrote:
>
>
> +AD4-Where do you get this info about religion? I have a friend whose parents
> +AD4-were from Yugoslavia - a very nationalistic (i.e. not +ACI-Ruthene+ACI-)
Ukrainian
> +AD4-Catholic. Ukrainians came to what is now Yugoslavia from Galicia, which
> +AD4-is quite Ukrainian Catholic. In fact, a Ukrainian Catholic priest noted
> +AD4-8,000 Ukrainians in Bosnia in 1908.
>
> Is your nationalist friend your source on all of this?
He is the source of none of it (we've been out of touch for years). The info
was from a book about the diaspora. My friend's parents were an example of
Ukrainians from the former Yugoslavia.
> ARe you basing yourself on his personnal opinion to form the opinion that
> +ACI-Serbs are bad+ACI-,+ACI-Serbs are worse than Austrians+ACI-?
The Serb record, whether that of the "royal dictatorship" of King Alexander,
or in Bosnia and Croatia towards other nations, in comparison to that of
Austria, speaks for itself.
> Yes, you are right, they were brought there from Austrian lands, they are
> Uniates.
So why did you claim they were all Orthodox?
> +AD4-Most Ukrainians and all +ACI-Ruthenes+ACI- belong to the eparchy of
Kryzevci.
> +AD4-It counts 45,000 +ACI-Ruthenes+ACI-, 15,000 Ukrainians, 10,000 Croatians
and 5,000
> +AD4-Macedonians. Incidentally, do you know why there are Croatian members?
>
> Why do you place Ruthenes under quotation marks?
Because, other than the Yugoslav government's offical claims, and those of at
best half of carpatho-Ukrainians, "Ruthenes" are Ukrainians.
> Those +ACI-Croats+ACI- were Serbs, I know about the Krizevci eparchy, that was
> once part of Vojna Krajina, Orthodox Serbs still lived (until their expulsion
> in 1991) in Krizevci. Those Slavic Macedonians were probably refugees as the
> Serbs, from Ottoman lands. See what was done to the Orthodox? Serbs were
> massively Uniatized there by the Austrians specifically and also in
> Zumberak, it was only years after the creation of Militar Graenzer and the
> promise of +ACI-religious tolerance+ACI- by the Hapsbourgs that that was
> finally achieved.
Very interesting. Only Ukrainian Caholics were given free plots of land in
Bosnia...and it is likely that some of them did convert in order to take
advantage of this.
> +AD4-This church uses the old, Julian calender.
>
> I believe that all Uniate churches do.
>
> +AD4-Incidentally, Ukrainians in Bosnia suffered a lot at the hands of
Chetniks.
>
> Incidentally, they suffered under the ustashi, for that, they rebelled with
> the Serbs of Kozara and payed with their lives.
>
Chetniks and ustashe weren't so dissimilar I guess...ustashe just had the
support of the German government and could get away with more...
> +AD4APg- were Orthodox. There is no anti-Ukrianian/Ruthene plot. OK?
> +AD4-
> +AD4-No elaborate plot of course, just simple grassroots xenophobia.
>
> Oh come on, give me a break, most Serbs do not even know that Ukrainians are
> Uniates, I know that because I had an interest in that, when a Serb would be
> told, +ACI-I am a Ukrainian+ACI-, he would say +ACI-sure, you're cool, Slav
> brother+ACI- but the +ACI-Byzantine Rite Catholic+ACI- is not part of Serbian
> vocabulary, the very word +ACI-catholic+ACI- brings back very painful >
memories, you might not get killed but you will not be well recieved >
especially when the catholic Croats accross the Sava are killing Serbs.
OK. So those actions were based on ignorance. It doesn't justify them.
> +AD4APg- +AD4-It would seem the Serbs viewed the Ukrainians' lives as
> +ACI-more expendable+ACI- +AD4APg- +AD4-by placing them in cannon fire.
> +AD4APg- +AD4APg- Oh come on+ACE- Most Serbs did not care whether they were >
Ukrianians or not,
They cared enough to put them in positions where their lives were more at
risk.
> the +AD4APg- same was done to Serbian deserters if you must know.
OK. Once again, they weren't Serbs. It's quite natural for a non-Serb to
not want to fight for a greater Serbian homeland. It's a different situation
than being a deserter. As you have shown, there was no real state to belong
to at that time, just a bunch of ethnic armies.
>
> True I do live in Montreal, but I would not have been placed in the
> crossfire because I do not live in Eastern Montreal and because the Hell's
> angels only place bombs, they do not have gang fights.
>
> But the difference is that it was war, general mobilization applies to all,
> I am sincerely sorry that anyone got caught in the crossfire but that is a
> principle of war, I am sure that the same was done to Ukrainians and
> Ruthenes living in Croat controlled territory.
I simply have not heard of this. If this happened, please bring it to light.
> You can not try to transform
> this into some +ACI-anti-Ukrainian/Ruthene+ACI- plot as you earlier on claimed
> or even +ACI-xenophobia+ACI- since as I told you that people in the army were
> treated according to accomplishment and effort.
......cut.........
> +AD4-
> +AD4-Banja Luka was not a war zone. This occurred in land outside of combat,
> +AD4-in other words it was pure terror on civilians. Did Austrians destroy
> +AD4-Serb churches, schools, monastaries etc. in Bosnia or other areas not in
> +AD4-a war zone?
>
> Austrians destroyed Serbian churches, schools and killed innocent civilians
> in areas that they occupied during the 1915-1918 period.
You mean areas not part of pre-war Serbia? Then they were Serb-like.
> This was not about destroying non-Serbs but rather some idiots who wanted
> revenge for example the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Western Slavonia and
> Krajina, most catholic churches were bombed then, when the same and worst
> was done to Serbian churches by Croats. Pardon me if the dynamite technician
> does not know the difference between +ACI-Greek and LAtin catholic+ACI-, any
> destruction is wrong, but this was not done out of +ACI-hate of
> Ukrainians+ACI- or anyone else but rather out of +ACI-tit for tat+ACI-, since
> many churches could have
> been destroyed from 1991 until 1995 but were not, if Ukrainian ones got
> caught in the quagmire I am sorry but that does not reveal anything.
>
> +AD4-
> +AD4-As for combat zones, OK I'll concede that Austrians were as bad as Serbs.
>
> Austrians were worse than Serbs (a smart looser demands a compromise a smart
> winner challenges that)
Are you referring to my concession? Sorry, I'm not here to argue, but to
defend/attack points and to present information. If I turn out to be wrong,
that's fine - I've learned something. I can boost my ego in other ways.
From what I have seen in these posts, Austrians have been better towards
minorities in peacetime than Serbs have been in peacetime, and about the same
in war zones.
And I still have not been convinced that A-H was not the best thing that Slavs
could have until the 1990's.
> +AD4-But would you concede that Serbs were also no better than Austrians?
>
> Hah+ACEAIQ- Was this the point of your discussion?
The point of this discussion was lost 50 posts ago :). I think it started
when I challenged the implicit claim of some pro-Serb and Russian "Slavic
jihad" post that Russians and Serbs were some kind of defenders of the Slavs.
I mentioned that they have done much harm - Russia through obvious
occupation and Serbia through occupation and through its role in the
destruction of A-H, a good thing for Slavs.
Babai
> Should I start one for every single persecution of every single Slavic
> people by the Austrians, starting with the Serbs?
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Igor
Mike Davidchik wrote in message ...
>> outlawed Orthodoxy. And as far as I remember, Uniates were given a
choice,
>> join Orthodoxy or Catholicims in Russia, they massively went over to
>> Orthodoxy because had they become Catholics they would have had to modify
>> drastically their practices.
>
>Orthodox Church in Poland for a long time.
I was talking about the "Polish empire" in which Uniates were created and in
during its existence.
>Most of the Uniates were under
>the protection of Austria-Hungary, not the Poles.
Yes, sadly enough, the Poles had not much more respect for Uniates then
Orthodox, but at least they recognized the Uniates as a "legitimate
religion" in their "empire" (Poland-Lithuania).
>The Uniates in Belarus
>were founded due to the old Council of Florence and were protected by
>Lithuania
>as much as Poland.
But do not tell me that Polish and catholic pressure in general had nothing
to do with it.
>The seventy-six bishops in Belarus and Ukraine signed a
>treaty with Rome to maintain their indepedence from the Russians.
Yes and placing themselves under the Pope, I know.
>The
>Poles interfered in the internal matters of the Greek Rite Church in
>Galacia, but didn't mess with it as much in other parts of the
>Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth. There were several Catholic religious
>orders, particularly the Jesuits, who did not believe that the Latin Rite
>was so important. Prior to the fall of Constantinople and the rise of
>Moscovy, there were many Greek Rite Catholic churches in Asia Minor and
>Eastern Europe, even in Italy.
Those were mostly the result of LAtin and catholic interference, at one
period, all of Greece, except Mt. Athos had become "Uniate" while it was
under the occupation of the "Crusaders".
>> As a result of the Vatican's actions, that's how they start, do you not
>> remember the fact that when Ukraine was taken by Poland from Lithuania
>> (change of +ACI-administrative+ACI- borders) the Uniates were pressured
>even more
>> into becoming Catholics, Poles did not even tolerate them being Uniates,
>> they want all Orthodox to become that way and then to become Catholics.
>
>This was nothing compared to what happened after the partitioning of
>Belarus to Russia.
Those were Uniates who were once Orthodox, I support no persecution
whatsoever but surely you can not compare the catholic oppression of
Orthodox to Russia will to "get back" their flock.
>All of Ukraine was not taken from Lithuania by Poland
>because Lithuania never had all of the Ukraine.
Sorry, what I meant that when most of it came under "Polish administration".
>Some parts of Ukraine were
>always under Poland or A-H before taken over by Russia. The Uniates came
>into existence during the heighth of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
>> Which ones united for nationalistic reasons to fight Russian Orthodoxy?
>
>Western Ukraine and Belarus
That might be what your clergy is saying know because your specific
condition is being used as a political leverage and "cultural trait" of
distinguishing yourself from a Russian.
>> Perhaps, but Peter the Great has not always acted in the church's
interest
>> but rather manipulated it to follow his. Anyways, you know nothing of the
>> Serbian Orth. Church so not even compare.
>
>This is true, but the Serbian Orthodox Churcch had nothing to do with
>Ukrainians.
OK, well then I do not even know why it was mentionned.
>> Well, that is because most of the real pious fled abroad, those who
stayed
>> were either unlike, poor and unconcerned with religion or communism but
>> staying alive.
>
>This is why half of the CIS is atheistic or agnostic today. Those who are
>nominal Orthodox, know little about their faith.
Sad but true.
par...@my-dejanews.com
> and later
> >> of Bosnia. General mobilization was announced. Therefore it was Bosnian
> >> Ukrainian's OBLIGATION AS CITIZENS OF BOSNIA to join the army.
> >>
> >set foot in Bosnia!
>
> You might have set foot in Bosnia, peterpan, but Lipin has one big advantage
> over you, he has something you never will - common sense.
>
par...@my-dejanews.com
"Goran" <bos...@beotel.yu> wrote:
> Actually, citizens of Republic of Srpska.
>
THE NAME IS REPUBLIKA SMRTSKA, REFLECTS THE PREOCUPATION OF ITS CITIZEN WITH
THIS SUBJECT!
> +++++++++++++++++++++++
> Veliki Srbin te posmatra!
> M|SKAMAN wrote in message <36E43A7C...@beer.com>...
> >
> >
> >bab...@netscape.net wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > Oh come on! Most Serbs did not care whether they were Ukrianians or
> not, the
> >> > same was done to Serbian deserters if you must know.
> >>
> >> Yeah, but Ukrainians weren't Serbs! They were not involved. How would
> >> you like it if, in the battle between Hells Angels and that other
> >> motorcycle gang in Montreal (you wrote that you are in Quebec) one side
> >> kidnaps you and forces you in front of the line of fire. It's criminal
> >> isn't it?
> >
> >Is this so hard to understand?! Those Ukrainians were citizens of SFRJ and
> later
> >of Bosnia. General mobilization was announced. Therefore it was Bosnian
> >Ukrainian's OBLIGATION AS CITIZENS OF BOSNIA to join the army.
> >
> >>
> >
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Igor
Croat
+AD4APg- side during the war and therefore decided to share their destiny. It is
+AD4APg- common in Balkans that nations cooperate according to their religion. It
has
+AD4APg- nothing to do with anti-Ukrainian mood among Serbs.
+AD4-
+AD4-The persecution of the Ruthenian or Ukrainian Catholic Church in Communist
+AD4-Eastern Europe is nothing new. Both the Yugoslavs and Russians did it.
+AD4-For some reason, Serbians think that any so-called +ACI-Slavic Brotherhood,+ACI-
+AD4-only includes Orthodox Christians. There are just as many Slavic
+AD4-Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, in the world. They just were never
+AD4-allowed to freely exist in Serbia or Russia.
With all due respect, you know nothing of the Balkans, you are only in on
the parade to flash your badge here. This is not about a war against
catholics in general but a war in which most catholics sided with other
catholics against the orthodox and muslims. Ukrainians are allowed to exist
and have been existing freely.
+AD4APg- There were certain destroyings of such objects in latest wars in all
sides.
+AD4APg- Was these churches Catholic?
+AD4-
+AD4-Is it okay to destroy churches if they are Catholic? Can you blame
+AD4-Ukrianian Catholics if they wre sympathetic to the Croations?
Well, no church should be destroyed, but if you sympathize with Croats who
destroyed ever Orthodox church from Istria to Vukovar then I do not think
you should be lecturing others on the protection of religious artifacts.
+AD4APg- +AD4-In May 1993 the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry denounced the brutal abuses
+AD4APg- +AD4-done by Serbs against ethnic Ukrainians. It reported that hundreds of
+AD4APg- +AD4-them were found in concentration camps and that libraries, churches,
+AD4APg- +AD4-schools, and many individual homes were destroyed.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- Many objects in Bosnia were destroyed due to war.
+AD4APg- But this about abuses has to be proved first, specificaly explained what
+AD4APg- actually happened and determined was it Serbian anti-Ukrainian mood
(which I
+AD4APg- doubt) or local Ukrainians just took sides in conflict and suffered the
+AD4APg- consequences.
+AD4-
+AD4-Nonsense...the Serbs have been persecuting Catholics in Yugoslavia for
+AD4-fifty years. There was a policy of eliminating Greek Rite Catholics among
+AD4-the secret police of most of the Communist Bloc countries. Stalin was
+AD4-paranoid about the Vatican.
What are you talking about, once again, you know nothing about the region,
had Serbs truly been persecuting catholics then there would not be the 30 +ACU-
of them in Yugoslavia.
+AD4APg- +AD4-The information here has been taken from Ameryka, the Ukrainian Weekly,
+AD4APg- +AD4-Svoboda - and numerous personal accounts.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- Hm, I wonder how trustworthy this sources are. Are this Catholic sources?
+AD4-
+AD4-So they are untrustworthy if they are Catholic sources? How trustworthy
+AD4-are the Orthodox sources in this part of Europe?
What is your problem, this is not just a catholic source but the same source
as the Zagreb cardinal. Let me remind you that the Catholic church gave the
full support for the Holocaust over Serbs, Jews and Gypsies in WW II and
collaborated into mass conversions for some just prior to the friars taking
axes and splitting their heads. Ther is your persecution, but it was the
catholics who carried it out.
+AD4APg- +AD4-Offical records showed 36,098 Ukrainians in the former Yugoslavia
+AD4APg- +AD4-(church records indicated as many as 45,000). That number has now
+AD4APg- +AD4-been dramatically +ACI-cleansed+ACI-.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- So what is your point? Many former Yugoslav left too.
+AD4-
+AD4-The point is that nobody should be cleansed. They were probably cleansed
+AD4-not because they were Ukrainians, but because they were Ukrainian
+AD4-Catholics. Also tthe russified Ukrainians sometimes don't consider
+AD4-Ruthenians as Ukrainians and they know that.
Well nobody should be but almost everyone was, and mostly Serbs, but why are
you particularly aiming the blame on Serbs, what is your point here?
Mike Davidchik
> full support for the Holocaust over Serbs, Jews and Gypsies in WW II and
> collaborated into mass conversions for some just prior to the friars taking
> axes and splitting their heads. Ther is your persecution, but it was the
> catholics who carried it out.
Please provide proof that the Catholic Church gave full support of the
Holocaust. You have to be crazy. What went on in Germany and Yugoslavia
is the not to be blamed on the Catholic Church. Most Catholics fought
on the side of the Allies in WW2. No friars split any heads. There were
many priests and nuns who were executed by the Nazis. There were hundreds
of thousands of Catholics who died in concentration camps run by the
Nazis. You nitwit. You have been fully indoctrinated by the Serbs,
Russians, and Commies and are beyond help. Serbs like you aren't going
to convince anybody in the West that the Serbs are the good guys. You
show the West your ignorance and prejudice and that the Serb authorities
are a bunch of stupid thugs.
Mike
firefly
ugly, is the reason, why you are a live.
Goran
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Veliki Srbin te posmatra!
>Point taken. So it was basically chaos: Serb armed gangs vs. Muslim armed
>gangs vs.(later, apparently) Croat ones. So why the hell were these Serb
>armed gangs pressing into service uninvolved parties?
Well, we first declared our states, Republik of Srpska, "Bosnia and
Herzegovina" and Herceg Bosna. Then we made laws and started to impose them.
>The forced mobilization was not into a legitimate state, but basically into
>one of these armed gangs. Like if suddenly the Montreal police ceased to
>exist and the motorcycles gangs started grabbing anyone they wanted, and
>forcing them to do the most dangerous, and thus deadly, work (like Serbs
>placing Ukrainians into the front lines).
See above. Our states are not equal gangs of motorcyclists.
Goran
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Veliki Srbin te posmatra!
>The Serb record, whether that of the "royal dictatorship" of King
Alexander,
>or in Bosnia and Croatia towards other nations, in comparison to that of
>Austria, speaks for itself.
Ideas of Yugoslavia are not Serbian but originaly Croatian, from Croat
Narodna stranka and bishop Strossmayer. Croats want to free themselves from
Austria and Hungary.
>> +AD4-Incidentally, Ukrainians in Bosnia suffered a lot at the hands of
>Chetniks.
"Chetniks"?
>> Incidentally, they suffered under the ustashi, for that, they rebelled
with
>> the Serbs of Kozara and payed with their lives.
>Chetniks and ustashe weren't so dissimilar I guess...ustashe just had the
>support of the German government and could get away with more...
Please avoid talking on something you don't know much about.
>OK. So those actions were based on ignorance. It doesn't justify them.
It is my impression that noone is trying to justify actions against
Ukrainians, just to correct your version for reasons things happened.
>> +AD4APg- +AD4-It would seem the Serbs viewed the Ukrainians' lives as
>> +ACI-more expendable+ACI- +AD4APg- +AD4-by placing them in cannon fire.
>> +AD4APg- +AD4APg- Oh come on+ACE- Most Serbs did not care whether they
were >
>Ukrianians or not,
>They cared enough to put them in positions where their lives were more at
>risk.
Possible, but not for being Ukrainians but for not being trustworthy. It was
done with all soldiers who weren't trusworthy enough. Was I saying you this
once already?
>> the +AD4APg- same was done to Serbian deserters if you must know.
>OK. Once again, they weren't Serbs. It's quite natural for a non-Serb to
>not want to fight for a greater Serbian homeland. It's a different
situation
>than being a deserter. As you have shown, there was no real state to belong
>to at that time, just a bunch of ethnic armies.
States were in process of forming. In bigger cities as Banjaluka they were
functioning.
>> Austrians destroyed Serbian churches, schools and killed innocent
civilians
>> in areas that they occupied during the 1915-1918 period.
>You mean areas not part of pre-war Serbia? Then they were Serb-like.
I think he means about aereas PART of pre-war Serbia, as Macva and Podrinje,
aereas near river Drina (in Serbia).
But what even if he means about aereas not part of pre-war Serbia?
Johnny Byrne
> > Let me remind you that the Catholic church gave the
> > full support for the Holocaust over Serbs, Jews and Gypsies in WW
> > II and collaborated into mass conversions for some just prior to
the > > friars taking axes and splitting their heads. Ther is your
persecution, but it > > was the catholics who carried it out.
> Please provide proof that the Catholic Church gave full support of
> the Holocaust...
The reference above was to the Holocaust of Serbs, Jews and Gypsies
in WW2 Yugoslavia in general, and the Ustashe Independent State of
Croatia in particular.
> You have to be crazy. What went on in Germany and Yugoslavia is the
> not to be blamed on the Catholic Church.
The genocidal role of the Croatian catholic church in the Holocaust of
Jews and especially Serbs in WW Croatia is vastly documented. As is
the fact that it wascarried out with the full knowledge and tacit
acceptance of the Vatican.
> Most Catholics fought on the side of the Allies in WW2.
WW2 in the West was essentially a European war. Of the European
nations involved, the catholics of Germany, Italy, Croatia, Bulgaria,
Hungary, Rumania, Albania, were allies of Nazi Germany. Catholics of
nations which surrendered early in the war, like France, Belgium,
Holland, Norway, Denmark, Czechoslovakia etc, played no significant
role in the defeat of Nazi Germany. Likewise the catholicsof neutral
countries such as Sweden, Switzerland and my own country, Ireland,
though here, as elsewhere, large numbers did volunteer to fight in the
British Army.
Which leaves the Soviet Union, Communist/Orthodox,Catholic +, USA,
Heinz 57, and mainly protestant Great Britain. If they'd had the
choice, most catholics might have chosen to fight on the side of the
allies. But they didn't and the facts above indicate that most
catholics actually spent the war fighting on the side of Nazi Germany.
> No friars split any heads...
Grotesquely wrong in the case of Pavelic's Croatia, where as we'll
presently see,the Ustashe catholic church, and especially the
Franciscan Order, waded knee deep in the blood of the massacred
innocent. The church into which I was born and whose faith I still
profess, was forever shamed by association with a catholicism that
became truly demonic. That the Papal Sanction was never withdrawn by
the Vatican from the Croatian catholic church at a time when it might
have spared countless Serbian lives, was not just a sin against God,
but a crime against humanity. All catholics have a duty to denounce
the bestial conduct of the Pavelic era Croatian church, if only to
help guard against it happening ever again.
> There were many priests and nuns who were executed by the Nazis.
There were > hundreds of thousands of Catholics who died in
concentration camps run by the > Nazis.
Indeed, along with uncountable millions more, but at the hands of a
racist, godless state,not one, as in Croatia, where church and state
were active partners in the wholesalesectarian butchery and forced
conversion of citizens professing a different form of christianity.
> You nitwit.
The kettle calling the kettle black.
> You have been fully indoctrinated by the Serbs, Russians, and
Commies > and are beyond help.
While you, of course, display all the liberated attributes of
ignorance and prejudicewhich you obviously confuse with freedom.
> Serbs like you aren't going to convince anybody in the West that the
Serbs are > the good guys. You show the West your ignorance and
prejudice and that the > Serb authorities are a bunch of stupid thugs.
Well, I'm not a Serb, but Irish and catholic and presumably I live in
the West. Andin comparison to this dysfunctional end product of
western civilisation, I'd say the Serbs are positively enlightened.
What follows is a list of hundreds of Ustashe Croatian clerics
involved in the WW2genocide of Serbs, complete with brief descriptions
of their crimes. I suggest you study them carefully, not only to
prevent you making a fool of yourself, but to acquaint you with the
truth - it should prove a novel experience. They come in 2 parts.
> Mike
- Johnny Byrne
_______________
At the end of WW II, the 1,500 Roman Catholic priests escaped
Europe and escaped justice. These were Roman Catholic priests
who murdered Serbs and Jews with their own hands. Ante Pavelic
escaped Croatia and fled to Argentina where he became the
security advisor to Juan Peron. Peron then issued 34,000
visas to Nazi Croatians with included visas to these 734 Roman
Catholic priest. {The Term 'Ustasha' refers to the Nazi
Croatian police who were responsible for killing 700,000
Serbs, 40,000 Jews and 25,000 gypsies in Croatia and Bosnia
during WW II. Not a single person was tried at Nuremberg for
these crimes against humanity]. These are some of the
Catholic priests who escaped justice!
ABRUS, Fra IVAN
Franclscan priest and active Ustasha.
ADAMCIK, Prof. BRUNO
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
ARSAMOVIC, Dr. ANTUN
Catholic bishop of Djakovo. Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
Used terror to force Orthodox Serbs to convert to Catholicism.
Took over the Serbian Orthodox churches in his jurisdictional
area and converted them to Catholic churches. He ordered many
of the Orthodox churche destroyed such as those in Bracevci,
Major, Poucje, Depsin, Tenje, Dalj, Markusica, Kapelna,
Kucanci, Budimci, Poganovci, Bijelo Brdo, Borovo Selo,
Trpinje, Bobota, Pacetin, Brsadin, Cepin, Martinci Cepinski,
Trnjani, Klokocevik, Topolje, and Brod na Savi. He followed
the directives in the testament 'The Return to the Faith of
our Fathers,' written and published by St. Jeronimo in Zagreb
which was under the direct control of Archbishop Stepinac.
ALAUPOVIC, MARKO
Catholic priest who was an active Ustasha and close associate
of the bloodthirsty Archbishop Saric of Sarajevo.
ALAUPOVIC, ANTE
Catholic priest in New Sarajevo. Close friend and associate of
Archbishop Saric and Jasenovac killer Max Luburich. Under his
leadership, the property of the Serbian Cultural Society
'Prosveta' in Sarajevo was pillaged and destroyed. Very active
Ustasha. Decorated by Fascist Ante Pavelic.
ALFIREVIC, ANTE
Catholic priest in Zagreb and active Ustasha.
ANDERLIC, Dr. VILKO
Catholic curate in Sotin and a very active Ustasha who used
terror extensively to force Serbs to convert to Catholicism,
threatening those that didn't with death.
ANIC, Fra SIME
Franciscan priest and very active Ustasha.
ANDJELOVIC, Fra ANDJEL
Catholic curate in Kraljevska Sutjeska. Very active Ustasha.
Decorated by Fascist Ante Pavelic.
ANDRASEC, Fra DIONIZIJE
Franciscan priest who was a very active Ustasha and a close
associate of Bishop Aksamovic. Personally went to Serbian
churches, pillaging them, then setting them on fire. Used
torture and terror to force Serbs to convert to Catholicism.
Decorated by Fascist Ante Pavelic.
ANTIC, Don PETAR
Catholic priest who worked very closely with Fra Dr. Bilobrk,
a curate in Metkovic who called on all Croats to use axes,
hoes and scythes to slaughter Serbs rather than 'expensive'
bullets.
ARBULIC, MIHO
Catholic curate in Mandaljen who was an active Ustasha and was
decorated by Fascist Ante Pavelic.
ASTALOS, JOSIP
Catholic curate in Dalj and Osijek. Considered a Croatian
intellectual. Participated in the sadistic tortures of Serbs
in Dalj and Erdut. During the night, he arrested women, took
them to a basement, and forced them to completely undress.
Organized several Ustasha killing bands. Personally arrested
the first 25 Serbs in Dalj, torturing them for several days,
then killed them all. An extreme sadist. Decorated by Fascist
Ante Pavelic.
BABIC, Fra AUGUSTIN
Franciscan priest who was an active Ustasha.
BABIN, Don MARTIN
Catholic curate in Bisk and an active Ustasha.
BADURINA Dr. TEODOR
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
BAIER, VIRTOR
Catholic priest who used terror extensively to force Serbs to
convert to Catholicism.
'CATHOLIC CLERGYMEN NOT ONLY DID NOT TARE A STAND FOR WHICH
THE SITUATION CALLED, BUT WERE IN FACT OFTEN THE LEADERS OF
PAVELICH¹S BANDITS BLOODY ORGIES. FOR A LONG TIME THE
POLITICS OF PAVELICH¹S GOVERNMENT AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WERE
IDENTICAl, WHICH GREATLY INFLUENCED THE THEN PRESENT DAY
CATHOLIC BISHOPRIC WITH STEPINAC AT ITS HEAD ... INNOCENT
PEOPLE ARE BEING SLAUGHTERED ... EVEN THEIR CLERGY IS
INVOLVED, AND THEY DO NOT RAISE A VOICE OF PROTEST.'
‹Berislav Andelinovic
Croatian politician
December 23, 1941
BAJIC, LEONARD
Fraciscan priest from Makarska. Active Ustasha who was
decorated by Fascist Ante Pavelic.
BAKOTIN, JERRO
Catholic priest. Active Ustasha.
BARSIC, Dr. STJEPAN
Catholic priest and very active Ustasha. Was a trustee in
Croatia of His Holiness, the Pope.
BAKULA, Fra ANTE
Croatian Catholic priest who organized the slaughter of
several thousand Serbs during mid 1942. He personally
participated in the slaughters in the county of Hrasno.
Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
BARULA, PETAR
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
BALICEVIC, DR. MARRO
Catholic curate who terrorized Serbs to force them to convert
to Catholicism.
BALTIC, Fra VIKTOR
Franciscan priest in Ljubincic. Active Ustasha. Decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
BANDIC, Fra BRANRO
Franciscan priest in Derventa. Personally took a band of
Ustasha killers to the Serbian village of Hrvacani where he
had 120 Serbs arrested. All were taken to Banja Luka where
they were tortured. All 120 were then slaughtered. Fra Bandic
participated personally in the killings.
BANDIC, DRAGO
Catholic curate in Prnjavor. Active Ustasha. Decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
BANIC, STANRO
Catholic abbot in Zagreb. Active Ustasha.
BARAC, DOMINIRO
Catholic catechist who committed numerous atrocities against
Serbs in the area of Dubrovnik. Organized terrorist groups of
Croats who went through Serbian villages, killing men, women,
and children, and pillaging their properties.
BARBARIC, Dr. MLADEN
Croatian professor and priest who terrorized Serbs into
converting to Catholicism. Personally participated in
slaughtering Serbs. Decorated by Fascist Ante Pavelic.
BARBIR, Fra FRANJO
Franciscan priest and professor at the Franciscan high school
in Dubrovnik. Active Ustasha. Decorated by fascist Ante
Pavelic.
BARESA, IVAN
Catholic priest and active Ustasha who was decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
BARIC, PASRO
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
BARISIC, JAROV
Catholic priest and active Ustasha. Decorated by fascist Ante
Pavelic.
BARISIC, RRESIMIR
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
BARISIC, Fra STIPE
Catholic priest and active Ustasha. Decorated by fascist Ante
Pavelic.
BARSIC, BERTRAND
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
BARUN, BORIS
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
BASIC, MIRKO
Catholic curate and active Ustasha.
BASIC, Fra PETAR
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
BAUERLEIN, STJEPAN
Catholic catechist and active Ustasha who was decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
BEBIC, BERNARDIN
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
BECRER, IVAN
Catholic priest in Trnjani. Gave an ultimatum to all Serbs in
his area to either convert to Catholicism within 30 days or
face a brutal death.
BEDRICA, Fra GABRO
Franciscan priest. Very active Ustasha and terrorist.
BEKMAN, JOSIP
Catholic priest in Prijedor and active Ustasha.
BELIC, Fra O.
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
BELUHAN, Fra EUGEN
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
BELUHAN, Dr. MILAN
Catholic priest and trustee of His Holiness, the Pope. Very
active Ustasha. Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
BENIGAR, Dr. ALERSIJE
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
BENRO, FRAN
Franciscan priest and terrorist. Very active Ustasha.
BENKOVIC, AMBROZIJE
Catholic curate and terrorist. Very active Ustasha.
BENKOVIC, Dr. JAROV
Catholic cleric and chaplain in the Ustasha Army.
BENKOVIC, IVAN
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
BERROVIC, Fra Dr. PETAR
Head of the Catholic deans in Drnish. Personally participated
in the slaughter of Serbs in Knin and Drnish. He was also
present during the infamous slaughter of Serbs in the Serbian
Orthodox Church at Glina, known as the Glina massacre.
BESTIC, MIJO
Catholic curate in Bosiljevo. Active Ustasha.
BEZIN, Fra IVAN
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
BILOBRK, Dr. VLADO
Catholic curate in Metkovic. Called on all Croats to use
pick-axes, hoes, and scythes to slaughter Serbs, because they
weren't worth wasting Croatian bullets on. On April 27, 1941
he was one of the first Croatian clerics to organize the
massacres of Serbs. With his band of killers, he slaughtered
hundreds of them on the bank of the Neretva River and, had
their bodies thrown into the water. At the end of 1943, on
his insistence, 107 women, children, and old men were
slaughtered in the villages of Sipka, Cilum and Pepsko Blato.
Insisting that all Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia
must be executed for fear if they were simply expelled, they
would return to their homes. Dr. Vlado was decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
BILOGRIVIC, Msgr. Dr. NIROLA
Catholic curate from Banjaluka. Enjoyed torturing his Serbian
victims. He liked to watch the blood draining from their
bodies as they slowly died.
BILORAPIC, FRANJO
Catholic priest. Active Ustasha.
BILUSIC, FILIP
Catholic priest. Active Ustasha.
BINICKI, Dr. FRAN
Catholic curate in Licki Osik. Very active Ustasha and
terrorist. Hundreds of Serbs were slaughtered in the basement
of his home. Twice decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
BIRGER, JULIJE
Catholic deacon who used terror extensively to force Serbs to
convert to Catholicism.
BIRT, BRANRO
Catholic priest in Fenicani. Used terror and torture to force
Serbs to convert to Catholicism.
BISRUPOVIC, Don ANTE
Catholic curate in Praznici who preached from the pulpit of
his church that 'all Serbs in Croatia should be executed.'
BJELOROSIC, Don IVAN
Catholic priest in Lisac. Committed numerous atrocities
against Serbs in the area of Dubrovnik.
BLAGA, ADOLF
Catholic priest. Active Ustasha.
BLAZEROVIC, RARLO
Catholic curate. Very active Ustasha.
BLAZEVIC, GRGA
Catholic priest in Bosanski Novi where he organized a
concentration camp for Serbs and made himself commander of it.
Many Serbs who were arrested were slaughtered in this camp on
his orders. He insisted that he was doing what Archbishop
Stepinac wanted and expected of him. For his work on behalf of
the 'Croatian cause' he was decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
BOCAR, VALENTIN
Catholic priest in Krizevci. Active Ustasha. Decorated by Ante
Pavelic.
BOCRMAN, JOSIP
Catholic priest in Sanski Most where he participated in the
slaughter of Serbs. Very active in the establishment of the
concentration camp in the area. Decorated by fascist Ante
Pavelic.
BOGDAN, IVO
Catholic cleric. Active Ustasha.
BOGUTOVAC, STJEPAN
Chaplain in the the ustasha Army. Active Ustasha. Decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
BOJANIC, STJEPAN
Catholic priest. Active Ustasha.
BOLOROVIC, Fra GRUJO
Franciscan priest who was a volunteer chaplain in the Ustasha
Army. Participated in the slaughter of Serbs. Decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
BONEFACIC, Dr. KVIRIN
Catholic bishop of Makarska and Split. Very active Ustasha.
Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
BORIC, NIROLA
Catholic curate. Active Ustasha.
BORIK, HARIJA
Dominican priest and active Ustasha.
BOROSA, VLADIMIR
Catholic curate in Lobor. Active Ustasha. Decorated by fascist
Ante Pavelic.
BORTAS, FRANJO
Catholic priest and teacher in Zagreb. Close associate of
Archbishop Stepinac. Very active Ustasha.
BOSNJAR, Don NIKOLA
Catholic curate in Prenje where he organized widespread
massacres of Serbs, not sparing women, children, or old men.
Chaplain in the Ustasha Army.
BOZNAR, ANTUN
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
BRADARIC, Fra STANRO
Franciscan priest who personally slaughtered hundreds of
Serbs.
BRAJROVIC, SLAVRO
Catholic curate and terrorist. Very active Ustasha.
BRALIC, LUJO
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
BRALO, BOZIDAR
Catholic priest in the St. Joseph church in Sarajevo.
Organized the slaughter of 180 Serbs on the Alipasa Bridge.
After killing them, he danced the Croatian national dance, the
Circle Dance, around their bodies before their bodies were
thrown into the river. He organized a large number of Moslems
from Sarajevo into slaughtering bands. These Moslem groups
were responsible for the brutal deaths of thousands of Serbs
in the area of Sarajevo. Bralo also murdered thousands of
Serbs in the concentration camp Jasenovac. He was a member of
the Ustasha Parliament, together with Archbishop Stepinac.
Personally slaughtered Serbs in the villages of Sabalj,
Marsic-Gaj, Piskavica, Ponira, Biljevina, Kozara mountain,
Sanski Most, Kamengrad and Grmec. Decorated by fascist Ante
Pavelic.
BRANDIC, MIRKO
Catholic priest. A sadist who was a very active Ustasha.
BRASRIC, ANTE
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
BREKALO, ZVONKO
Catholic priest who engaged personally in the mass slaughters
of Serbs in the concentration camp Jasenovac. Decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
BRESRI, BRUNO
Catholic priest from Varazdin monastery. Active Ustasha.
BRISEVAC, Fra DANIEL
Catholic curate of Stratinska. Active Ustasha. Decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
BRKAN, Fra IVO
Franciscan priest from Koraca (Bosnia) who was responsible for
the arrest of about 500 Serbs who were taken to the
concentration camps in Luzane, Muratovac, and Derventa. From
there, they were taken to the camp in Slavonski Brod where
they were brutally tortured. None of the innocents ever
returned home.
BRKIC, Fra MARIJAN
Franciscan priest. Active Ustasha. Repeatedly urged Croats to
take up arms to kill the Orthodox Serbs.
BRKLJACIC, Dr. IVAN
Trained to be a Catholic priest, he loved to torture Serbs to
death. In 1943 he was named commander of the Jasenovac death
camp. The second Catholic cleric to be made commander there.
Prior to his 'promotion,' he was in Stara Gradiska where he
was responsible for the slaughter of over 2,000 Serbian women.
BRZICA, PETAR
Catholic cleric from the monastery of Siroki Brijeg. Member of
the 'Great Brotherhood of Crusaders.' This notorious 'King of
the Killers.' won a contest held in Jasenovac based on who
could kill the most Serbs in the shortest period of time. Fr.
Brzica won. In the course of the night of Auqust 29. 1942, he
cut the throats of 1,350 people with his own hands.
BUBANJ, MARTIN
Catholic priest in Susak. Personally participated in the
executions of Serbs.
'THE FACTS OF THE MASSACRES WOULD HAVE INDEED BEEN INCREDIBLE
IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN AUTHENTICATED FROM SO MANY DIFFERENT
SOURCES. IN QUANTITY THE MASSACRES RIVALED THE WORST OF THE
NAZI CRIMES AND FOR SHEER CRUELTY THEY SURPASSED ANYTHING
HIMMLER EVER DEVISED.'
‹David Martin
'Web of Disinformation'‹HBJ Books, 1990
BUBIC, CIRO
Franciscan priest. Active Ustasha.
BUBLE, VINRO
Catholic curate and active Ustasha.
BUC, ANTE
Franciscan priest. Active Ustasha.
BUCIN, PETAR
Franciscan priest. Active Ustasha.
BUCKOVIC, STJEPAN
Catholic curate in Gornji Bogicevci. Active Ustasha.
Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
BUCONIC, Don ANTE
Catholic priest. Active Ustasha who organized the slaughter of
Serbs in the county of Stolac. Chaplain in the Ustasha Army.
BUJANOVIC, JOLE
Catholic priest who was the director of the Catholic parishes
in the Lika and Gacka areas. Slaughtered Serbs
indiscriminantly, then pillaged their properties. Organized
Ustasha 'storm' units, consisting of the worst dregs of the
Croatian criminal element, who were sent to slaughter Serbs
throughout the province of Lika. Insisted that no Serb must
survive in the Croatian state. Insisted that that was the aim
of His Holiness, the Pope. As late as February 1945, he hanged
60 Serbs in Gospic. He was decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
BUJAS, Fra GASPAR
Franciscan priest, active Ustasha.
BURINAC, BEATO
Catholic priest, active Ustasha.
BULAT, STJEPAN
Catholic priest in Osijek, active Ustasha.
BULJAN, Dr. ANTUN
Catholic priest and educator, active Ustasha.
BUIJAN, LADISLAV
Catholic priest in Zavidovici where he was a central
personality in the Ustasha movement. Initiated many of the
slaughters of the Serbian people in that region. Personally
participated in the slaughters.
BULJAN, STJEPAN
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
BULJEVIC, Fra BERNARD
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
BULUM, PETAR
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
BUNTIC, Fra DIDAK
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
BURGER, JULIJE
Croatian Catholic dean in Podravska Slatina who used terror to
force Serbs to convert to Catholicism.
BURIC, MIRJAN
Catholic priest from Scit, an active Ustasha.
BURIC, Dr. VIRTOR
Catholic bishop from Senj. One of the three members of the
'Bishops Committee for the Forced Conversion of Serbs.' The
other two members were Archbishop Stepinac and Janko Simrak.
He was decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
BUTORAC, IVAN
Catholic priest, active Ustasha and decorated by fascist Ante
Pavelic.
BUTORAC, PAVLE
Catholic bishop of Kotor and Dubrovnik. An active Ustasha,
decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
BUTUROVIC, IVAN
Catholic curate in Jamnica, near Pisarovina. An active
Ustasha.
BUZUK, Fra MIROSLAV
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha who personally
participated in massacres. He was a curate in Lasina and was
decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
CALUSIC, Fra MARRO
Catholic priest of St. Ante in Sivsa. Organized and led a
group of killers in Sivsa, killing hundreds of Serbs.
Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
CANJUGA, ANZELMO
Catholic priest from the monastery of Varazdin and an active
Ustasha.
CAREV, Don JOZO
Catholic priest in Neoric and an active Ustasha who personally
participated in the slaughters of Serbs. Used the pulpit to
preach that 'all Serbs must be destroyed.'
CECELJ, VILIM
Catholic priest and an active Ustasha who was very close to
Archbishop Stepinac.
CECELJA, MARTIN
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
CEKADA, Dr. CEDOMIR
Chief of the Vrhbosanski Captol. A very active Ustasha.
CRADA, MILIVOJ
Catholic priest in Gornja Zenica. All the atrocities against
Serbs in that area were initiated by him.
CELAR, Fra DANE
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
CELIR, Dr. DRAGUTIN
Catholic curate from Sarajevo who was an active Ustasha.
CICUJAN, STANISLAV
Franciscan priest and an active Ustasha.
CIAVOLA, Fra AGOSTINO
The guardian of the St. Frane Monastery in Split. Active
Ustasha.
CIPCIC, MILAN
Catholic curate from Davor. An active Ustasha who was
decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
CONDRIC, IVAN
Catholic curate who organized terrorist and killer groups,
leading them to Serbian villages where they killed
indiscriminantly and pillaged without mercy.
CORIC, Fra DIDAR
Franciscan priest in Tomislavgrad. Organized the massacres of
Serbs in Nevesinje and Berkovici. Twice decorated by facist
Ante Pavelic.
CORIC, Fra DOMINIK
Catholic curate. Active Ustasha. Decorated by fascist Ante
Pavelic.
COSIC, ALOJZIJE
Catholic priest in Kotor Varos who participated personally in
the slaughter of Serbs. Chaplain in the Ustasha Army.
Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
COSIC, EFREM
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
CISIC, FRANJO
Catholic priest and active Ustasha who used terrorism to force
Serbs to convert to Catholicism.
COTIC, STANRO
Catholic curate and active Ustasha.
COVIC, Fra MILO
Franciscan priest. Active Ustasha.
CRNKOVIC, JOSIP
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
CRNKOVIC, MATIJA
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
CUBELA, Fra ANTE
Franciscan priest who was an active Ustasha.
CUBRANIC, JERRO
Catholic priest from Barbati. Very active Ustasha.
CUCROVIC, IVO
Catholic curate from Slano where some of the first mass
slaughters of Serbs took place and in which he personally
participated. Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
CUJIC, Fra MILO
Franciscan priest in Duvno. Personally participated in
massacres in Prisoja and Vila.
CULE, ANTE
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
CULE, Dr. PETAR
First a vicar then promoted to Catholic bishop of Mostar.
CULINA, Fra ANSELMO
Catholic priest who was personally killing inmates of
Jasenovac. He committed all of his murders with a small knife
that he liked to show to his victim before killing them. He
carried this knife with him at all times, even when holding
church services for the Croat soldiers in the camp. Decorated
by fascist Ante Pavelic.
CULINA, CVITAN
Catholic priest from Uzde. Active Ustasha who was decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
CUNITIC, MIJO
Catholic curate in Pukovo. Active Ustasha.
CURIC, Fra VLADISLAV
Catholic priest in Bilo. Terrorized Serbs into converting to
Catholicism. He organized and led bands of Croatian killers to
Serbian villages arresting Serbs indiscriminantly and
pillaging their properties.
CURIN, FRANJO
Catholic priest in Crni Lug. Active Ustasha.
CVERAN, PASRAL
Franciscan priest who was an active Ustasha and decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
CVETAN, FRANJO
Catholic priest and an active Ustasha.
CVITHOVIC, Fra ANTE
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
DAMJANOVIC, DAMJAN
Catholic priest from the Zagreb monastery. A close associate
of Archbishop Stepinac and an active Ustasha.
DARESIC, Don NIKO
Catholic curate in Trsten. Pointed out the Serbs in Trsten and
the surrounding area that were to be executed.
DEBELJAR, Msgr. IGNACIJE
House priest of His Holiness, the Pope in Zagreb. Very active
Ustasha. Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
DEFAR, MILAN
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
DELIC, Don NIKO
Catholic priest and active Ustasha. He was the Catholic dean
of Makarska. Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
DEMAN, Don MARTIN
Catholic curate.in Praznici. Preached from the pulpit that all
Serbs in Croatia should be killed.
DEPOLO, BOZO
Catholic religlous teacher on the Island of Rorcula.
An active Ustasha. Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
DERKES, GILBERT
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
DESPALJ, Don JURE
Catholic curate from Zagreb. Active Ustasha who was decorated
by fascist Ante Pavelic.
DEVCIC, MARKO
Catholic priest from Makarska and an active Ustasha.
DEZELIC, IVAN
Catholic priest who was an active Ustasha.
DIDOVIC, Fra MIRKO
Catholic priest. Active Ustasha.
DJURAK, GABRIEL
Catholic priest from the Zagreb monastery. Active Ustasha.
DJURIC, ANTE
Catholic priest in Divusa. Chief of the Ustasha Police in Dvor
na Uni. Organized bands of killers and sent them to various
Serb villages to slaughter the men, women, and children. He
instructed them specifically not to spare women and children.
After the killings, he absolved all of the murderers of their
sins. He was an extreme sadist. He would arrest Serbs, locking
them up in his stable, where he tortured them for hours before
killing them. He insisted from the church pulpit that the
Serbian question in Croatia could only be solved with the
'steel broom' (the gun). In his journal, he noted that on
April 14, 1941 (four days after the establishment of The
Independent State of Croatia) he went to Zagreb to ask for
instructions from Stepinac and then, he continued in his
journal: 'I met with the leaders of all the surrounding
parishes, and we agreed what we need to do.' The following
day, he arrested a number of Serbian women, forced them to
undress and ride naked on horses through the Croatian villages
in his area. Then he slaughtered them. He was decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
DOBRECIC, NIROLA
Catholic priest and chaplain in the Ustasha Army. Chief of the
Ustasha Police in Dvorna Uni.
DOBUK, MATO
Catholic curate from Dubrovnik. Very active Ustasha. Decorated
by fascist Ante Pavelic.
DOCKAL, Dr. RAMILO
Catholic canonic prelate of His Holiness, the Pope, in Zagreb.
Active Ustasha. Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
DODIC, PAVAO
Catholic priest who was an active Ustasha.
DOPELHAMER, STJEPAN
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
DORESIC, NIKOLA
Catholic priest who fought as a volunteer on the Eastern
Front. Decorated by the Nazis.
DRAGANOVIC, Dr. RUNOSLAV
Catholic priest and professor at the Catholic Theological
University of Zagreb. This Croatian Catholic priest would
become the head strategist within the Vatican, called the
'Ratline,' Fr. Draganovic was instrumental in helping
thousands of Nazi criminals escape Croatia after the war to
the West and to Argentina where they all escaped prosecution.
The criminals included fascist Ante Ante Pavelic and his
Minister of the Interior Andrea Artukovich, who were
ultimately responslble for the murders of nearly one million
human beings in The Independent State of Croatia. He was the
mastermind of the Ratline. Many of those Nazis he helped to
escape are still alive. A very active Ustasha he was decorated
by fascist Ante Pavelic. He was also found guilty for war
crimes and was jailed for those crimes.
DRAGICEVIC, Fra BERTO
Catholic priest and captain in the Ustasha Army.
DRLJIC, Fra Dr. RASTISLAV
Catholic priest and professor in Sarajevo.
DRNAS, Don STANKO
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
DUJMOVIC, Fra JOSIP
Catholic priest who was an active Ustasha.
DUJMUSIC, Dr. DRAGAN
Catholic catechist and active Ustasha.
DZAKULA, MATE
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
ETEROVIC, FRANE
Catholic priest in Dubrovnik, active Ustasha.
ETEROVIC, JERRO
Catholic preacher and active Ustasha.
ETTINGER, MIJO
Catholic curate in Daruvar. A member of the Ustasha
Parliament. Very active Ustasha.
FABEC, TOMA
Catholic priest in St. Martin who was an active Ustasha.
FAJDETIC, JOSIP
Catholic priest and religious teacher from Kompolje. Very
active Ustasha. Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
FALATAR, A.
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
FANTELA, NIRO
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
FELICINOVIC, Don JOZO
Catholic priest on the Island of Pag where some of the first
slaughters of Serbs took place. Was educating Croatian youth
on how to 'properly' terrorize Serbs. Personally responsible
for the deaths of hundreds of them in the concentration camp
on that island. Very active Ustasha. Decorated by fascist Ante
Pavelic.
FERENCIC, Dr. KARLO
Director of the Sarajevo Theological University. Catholic
priest and dedicated Ustasha.
FILIPOVIC, FRANO
Catholic priest. Chaplain in the Ustasha Army. Very active
Ustasha.
'WE MUST REMEMBER THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, WHICH IS NOT A
TERRORIST ORGANIZATION, LED SIX CRUSADES FOR THE LIBERATION OF
CHRIST¹S TOMB ... EVEN THE CHILDREN PARTICIPATED IN THESE
EXPEDITIONS. IF THE CHURCH APPROVED THESE CRUSADES, WE ARE
CONFIDENT THAT IT UNDERSTANDS ALSO THE PURPOSE OF OUR USTASHI
STRUGGLE.'
‹Dr. Mile Budak
Minister of Education, NDR, 1941
FILIPOVIC-MAJSTOROVIC, MIROSLAV
Franciscan friar. One of the most notorious of the Ustasha
leaders. Considered the chief ecclesiastical murderer of
Croatia. From the Catholic monastery near Banja Luka (Bosnia).
Led bands of killers throughout the Serbian villages of
Drakulic, Sargovac, and Motika, killing over 2,000 Serbian
men, women, and children. Promoted to Commandant of the
Croatian death camp of Jasenovac in the Autumn of 1942. While
addressing an armed battalion of Ustashe in the of Drakulic he
murdered a Serbian Orthodox child with his own hands. His
command at Jasenovac lasted only four months, but during that
four months, over 40,000 Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies were
tortured and executed. Fr. Filipovic was called Fra Sotona,
'Brother Devil' by his victims. A Croatian doctor who resisted
the Ustashe, Dr. Nikolic, a prisoner at Jasenovac spoke about
his first meeting with Filipovic: 'His voice had an almost
feminine quality which was in contrast with his physical
stature and the coarseness of his face... I was hardly seated,
and as I sank into my sad thoughts, I heard the orders 'Fall
in-Fall in!'... An old Ilija, an Ustasha, appeared in the
threshold of the hut, a revolver in one hand and in the other,
a lash ... Before us passed six men, their hands tied before
their backs with chains. The Ustashe had their revolvers
loaded and aimed. 'Fra Sotona' (Filipovic) walked over and
approached our group. 'Where is our new doctor?' I knew he
meant me. 'He is here,' someone replied. He came a little
nearer, looking at me with an insolent, ironic, bizarre
manner. 'Come here, doctor,' he said, 'to the front row, so
that you will be able to see our surgery being performed
without anesthetic. All our patients are quite satisfied. No
sighs, nor groans can be heard. Over there are the head and
neck specialists, and we have need of no more than two
instruments for our operations.' 'And Fra Sotona caressed his
revolver with one hand and his knife with the other ...
Looking at these victims who, in a few moments would be in
another world, fear written on each face, no one could
penetrate the depth of their moral abyss. They silently
watched the gathering crowd of more pitiful people, more
condemned people like themselves. Fra Filipovic approached a
group of them. Two shots rang out, two victims collapsed, who
began to twitch with pain, blood surging from their heads
intermingling with the brain of one or the eyes of the other.
'Finish off the rest!' cried Filipovic to the executioner as
he put his revolver away.'
‹ Dr. Nikola Nikolic
the Concentration Camp of Jasenovac
Zagreb, Croatia 1948.
Continued in next post...
Johnny Byrne
> > Please provide proof that the Catholic Church gave full support
> > of the Holocaust...
2nd part of the list of WW2 Croatian clerics whose active role
in the massacres of innocent Serbian men, women and children reserves
them a special place in hell. As one Utashe torturer admitted in the
hell of Croatia's Jasanovac, 3rd largest concentration/death camp in
Europe "I know I will burn in hell for what I am doing, but at least
I'll burn forCroatia."
- Johnny Byrne.
--------------------
FIRIS, Dr. TOMISLAV
Catholic priest and an active Ustasha.
FORJAN, Fra FLORENCIJE
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
FRANROVIC, Fra SILVIJE
Franciscan monk who participated personally in the massacres
of Serbs.
FRIGANOVIC, Fra JOAKIM
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
FRIMEL, ANTUN
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
FUCHS, JOSIP
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
GABRIC, STJEPAN
Catholic priest in Siroka Kula. Personally participated in the
slaughters of Serbs.
GAGULIC, LADISLAV
Catholic priest. Active Ustasha.
GALESIC, JOSIP
Catholic priest and chaplain in the Ustasha Army. Very active
Ustasha. Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
GARAPIC, ILIJA
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
GARIC, Fra JOSO
Catholic Bishop in Banja Luka who personally participated in
terrorizing Serbs to force them to convert to Catholicism.
Very active Ustasha. Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
GASMAN, VENDELIN
Guardian of the Franciscan monastery in Bjelovar. Active
Ustasha.
GAVRANOVIC, MATA
This priest was StepinacÄ…s confessor. An active Ustasha.
GAVRILOVIC, NENAD
Catholic priest who was assigned by Bishop Janko Simrak to
pillage the properties of Serbian churches and monasteries and
turn them over to the the bishopÄ…s residence in Rrizevci.
GECINA, MARTIN
Catholic priest in Recica who was a Major in the Ustasha Army.
Personally participated in the slaughters of Serbs.
GELIC, Fra TOMISLAV
Franciscan priest in Hrvaci. An active Ustasha.
GLAVAS, Fra PETAR
Franciscan priest in Hrvaci. An active Ustasha. Testified that
Archbishop Stepinac ordered him to support the Ustasha
Proqrams. Very active Ustasha. Decorated by fascist Ante
Pavelic.
GLAVAS, Dr. RADOSLAV
Franciscan priest and an active Ustasha. On July 4, 1941, the
Ustashi newspaper, Hrvatski Narod hailed him as a 'great
organizer of the Ustashe.' Responsible for the deaths of many
hundreds of Serbs.
GLAZAR, MATIJA
Catholic canonic from Senj. Active Ustasha. Decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
GLIBOTIC, Fra IVAN
Franciscan priest. Active Ustasha.
GOLIR, Msgr. ANTUN
Catholic priest. Active Ustasha.
GORSE, RORNELIJE
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
GOSPODNETIC, JURAJ
Catholic curate in Bosansko Grahovo. A very active Ustasha.
GRABIC, Fra PETAR
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
GRABIC, STJEPAN
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
GRBAVAC, Fra KARLO
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha who participated
extensively in slaughtering Serbs in Duvno. Chaplain in the
Ustasha Army.
GRBAVAC, LEOPOLD
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
GRANIC, Fra SRECRO
Franciscan priest and professor of religion in Siroki Brijeg.
Very active Ustasha.
GREBENAROVIC, Fra BONO
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha. Decorated by fascist
Ante Pavelic.
GREBIC, ANDJELKO
Catholic priest in Borovo who terrorized and tortured Serbs to
force them to convert to Catholicism.
GRESL, Fra FELIX
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
GRGIC, NEGELBERG
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
GRGIC, PETAR
Catholic curate from Tramosnjica. Chaplain in the Ustasha Army
and a very active Ustasha.
GRGUREV, DON IVO
Catholic curate in Vodice. Active Ustasha. Personally
responsible for hundreds of Serbian deaths during World War
II.
GRIC, ANTONIN
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
GRZANIC, VJEKOSLAV
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
GUBERINA, Dr. IVO
Catholic priest and a bloodthirsty Ustasha. Calling Serbs 'a
poison in Croatia,' he wrote in 1943: 'It is the natural right
of the Croatian State and the Croatian people to cure its body
of such poison...according to all principles of Catholic
morality they are assailants, and the state of Croatia has the
right to destroy them, even with a knife.' And the knife they
did use. More than a half a million Serbs were murdered by the
Croats during World War II. They were killed with a knife.
GUBIC, Fra BOSILJRO
Catholic priest in Volar. He participated personally in the
slaughter of Serbs in the villages of Niska Glava, Jugovac,
Cikota, and Volar. Used terror and applied various atrocities
to force the surviving Serbs to convert to Catholicism. From
the pulpit, he called on all Croats to start digging the
graves where the bodies of Serbs would be thrown.
GUBIC, Don CIRO
Catholic priest and an active Ustasha.
GUDELJ, Don MARTIN
Catholic priest in Opuzen. Called on all Croats in his church
sermons to begin digging Serbian graves. Organized groups of
killers that went with him through the Serbian villages in his
jurisdiction, killing the Serbs they found there and pillaging
their properties. He killed the children by beheading them
with a bayonet. Personally slaughtered 450 men, women, and
children. Together with Fra Dr. Bilobrk, he committed great
massacres of Serbs on June 28, 1941, Vidovdan, a Serbian
national holiday.
GUJIC, EUGEN
Catholic curate in Busovaca who murdered Serbian priest
Djordje Skobic. Called on all Croats to kill all Serbs west of
the Drina River (all Serbs living in (The Independent State of
Croatia.)
GUNCEVIC, Dr. JOSIP
Catholic priest and director of the High School in Brod na
Savi. Very active Ustasha. Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
GUTIC, BLAZO
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
GVOZDANOVIC, PAVLE
Catholic priest in Bjelovar. Very active Ustasha.
GVOZDANOVIC, PETM
Catholic priest. Bloodthirsty killer.
HABIJANOVIC, STJEPAN
Catholic priest and an active Ustasha.
HAILO, MATO
Catholic priest and chaplain in the Ustasha Army. An active
Ustasha.
HAJDUKOVIC, FILIP
Catholic canonic and active Ustasha. Decorated by fascist Ante
Pavelic.
HAUBRIR, JOSIP
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
HERAKOVIC, JANKO
Catholic curate who tortured Serbs, including the Serbian
Orthodox priest Jovo Andric, from Tepuliak. Ruthlessly
terrorized Serbs to force them to convert to Catholicism.
HERENIC, Fra HADRIJAN
Catholic priest who was an active Ustasha.
HERMANN, Fra CASTIMIR
The guardian of the Catholic Monastery of Cutinic. Organized a
concentration camp for Orthodox men and women. No one who was
sent there came out alive. Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
HERMANN, Dr. FRANJO
Catholic priest who terrorized Serbs to force them to convert
to Catholicism.
HITREC, TEODOR
Catholic curate in Valika. He was an active Ustasha.
HOLEVACKI, STJEPAN
Catholic priest who was an active Ustasha.
HORDZIC, STJEPAN
Catholic priest who was a chaplain in the Ustasha Army. Very
active Ustasha in Mokro Polje where hundreds of Serbs were
tortured and executed.
HRGIC, LJUBOMIR
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
HRISTIC, Prof. IVAN
Catholic cleric and professor in Sinj. Principally
responsible for the deaths of 82 Serbs. On his initlative,
these 82 people were thrown alive into the pit in Prolog. As a
priest, he led a band of killers to the town of Vrlika where
he personally participated in executions. Decorated by fascist
Ante Pavelic.
HRVAT, Fra ANTE
Catholic curate and monastery guardian. Active Ustasha who was
decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
HULJIC, Fra STANKO
Franciscan priest who was an active Ustasha.
HUSNJAR, LADISLAV
Catholic riest in Bjelovar. Active Utasha.
ILIC, Msgr. STJEPAN
Catholic priest in Cemerac. He was known as a bloodthirsty
Ustasha in the area in which he lived.
ILIJIC, IVAN
Catholic curate and active Ustasha.
ILOVACA, Fra BORIS
Franciscan priest and custodian of the museum in Banja Luka.
Very active Ustasha.
IRGOLIC, ANTUN
Catholic priest and active Ustasha who was named to the
Ustasha Parliament.
IVAR PATER, IGNJACIJE
Catholic priest who was a very active Ustasha. Decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
IVAKIC, Fra PAVLE
Franciscan priest who was an active Ustasha.
IVANCIC, IVAN
Catholic priest who insisted that Serbs must be annihilated.
IVANIS, BOZIDAR
Catholic priest and a very active Ustasha.
IVANROVIC, Fra CIRIL
Franciscan priest in Hercegovina. Active Ustasha.
IVANROVIC, Fra NIKOLA
Franciscan priest who participated personally in the
slaughtering of Serbs in the area of Nevesinje. Chaplain in
the Ustasha Army.
IVSIC, Dr. MILAN
Catholic priest and very active Ustasha.
JAGER, IVAN
Jesuit priest and a teacher of religion in Daruvar. Active
Ustasha.
JAGODAR, MIJO
Catholic priest who was a captain in the Ustasha Army.
Participated in the Rozara Massacre where 42,000 Serbian men,
women, and children were brutally murdered. 22,000 of the
victims were children under 12 years of age. Jagodar was
decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
JAKOVIC, IVAN
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
JANROVIC, Fra JOSIP
Catholic priest and chaplain in the Ustasha Army. Very active
Ustasha.
JANROVIC, STJEPAN
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
JELAVIC, BONO
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
JELCIC, Fra ANDRIJA
Franciscan priest from Capljina. Chaplain in the Ustasha Army.
Organized Ustasha militia which he used to enter Serbian
villages to kill the residents. He was known in the village of
Rakitin as a 'bloody murderer.'
JELCIC, Fra Dr. VITOMIR
Franciscan priest and dean and professor at the Catholic
Theological University in Sarajevo. Very active Ustasha.
Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
JELENIC, KRSTO
Catholic priest. Personally responsible for the slaughter of
120 Serbian men, women, and children.
JELIC, Fra MARINRO
Franciscan priest. Active Ustasha.
JEMBREKOVIC, STJEPAN
Catholic priest. Director of the Jesuit High School in Zagreb.
Active Ustasha.
JERICEVIC, DON ROMANO
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
JERROVIC, DON RADE
Catholic priest in Metkovic. Very active Ustasha.
JESIR, LJUDEVIT
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
JESIH, PAVAO
Catholic priest who was close to Archbishop Stepinac. Active
Ustasha.
JEZIC, ADALBERT
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
JOSIC, LJUDEVIT
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
JUNGWIRT, FRANJO
Catholic priest in Tenje. Active Ustasha. Used torture and
terror to force Serbs to convert to Catholicism.
JURCIC, Fra MARSO
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
JURENOVIC, Fra LUJO
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
JURETIC, Dr. AUGUSTIN
Franciscan priest who ruthlessly terrorized Serbs to force
them to convert to Catholicism.
JURIC, Fra ANTE
Franciscan priest in Sokolina. An active Ustasha. Decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
JURIC, MIJO
Catholic parish priest in Plivnice. Chaplain in the Ustasha
Army. Very active Ustasha.
JURICEV, ANTE
Catholic priest and very active Ustasha.
JURICEV, Fra DIONIZIJE
Franciscan priest who headed the Croatlan Catholic Office for
Conversions. He promised Ante Pavelic in 1941 that he would
have one million Serbs converted to Catholicism within a year
and that by that time there Would be no more Serbs living in
The Independent State of Croatia.
JURICIC, IVO
Cathclic curate in Kresevo. Active Ustasha who was decorated
by fascist Ante Pavelic.
JURISIC, JURE
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
JURISIC. NIROLA
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
JURKOVIC, Dr. IGNJACIJE
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
JURKOVIC, JULIJAN
Catholic priest. Active Ustasha. Decorated by fascist Ante
Pavelic.
KADIJIC, Don STANKO
Catholic priest in Zelevica-Orije who preached from the pulpit
that all Serbs in The Independent State of Croatia must be
annihilated.
KALAJ, Dr. JANKO
Catholic priest. Very active Ustasha.
KALAJDZIC, JOSIP
Catholic priest from Varazdin who was a very active Ustasha.
Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
KALAJDZIC, ZIVKO
Catholic curate and very active Ustasha.
KAMARIC, Fra DRAGO
Franciscan priest. Active Ustasha.
KAMBER, Dr. DRAGUTIN
Catholic priest. Also, chief of police in Dobo;. Preached and
wrote about the greatness of Hitler's Germany. Personally
participated in mass massacres of Serbs together with Muslim
lawyer Omer Muftic. His sermons condemning Serbs were
repeatedly published in Croatian publications such as
'Catholic Weekly,' 'Novi List,' 'Vrhbosna,' and 'Croatian
Thouqht.' His articles calling fo the annihilation of Serbs
from The Independent State of Croatia appeared in every Roman
Catholic publication in Croatla.
KAMTLO, PETAR
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
KARAHAN, SIME
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
KANOTI, MIHOVIL
Catholic curate. Active Ustasha. Decorated Fascist Ante
Pavelic.
KAPURSO, KARL
Catholic priest. Secretary of The Office of Croatian Bishops.
Active Ustasha. Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
KARADJORE, Fra PIJO
Franciscan priest. Active Ustasha.
KARGACIN, VLADIMIR
Catholic cleric and professor. Considered one of the better
known Croatian intellectuals. A member of a group of Croats
responsible for killing the Serbian Orthodox priests in the
area of Gospic. As a professor, he trained a number of high
school boys and organized them into killer bands that roamed
through Serbian villages in his area, indiscriminantly killing
hundreds of Serbian men, women, and children.KARIN, KARLO
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
KATIC, Dr. LOVRO
Catholic priest and professor who promoted hatred toward the
Serbs. Active Ustasha.
KAURINOVIC, Msgr. JOSIP
Catholic priest in Prijedor. Special representative of His
Holiness, the Pope. Personally participated in the mass
killings of Serbs, including women and children. Preferred
killing Serbs to expelling them. He insisted that they could,
conceivably return some day to their homes. He personally
arrested Serbian Orthodox priests in the area, tortured them,
then murdered them. He was decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
KERIC, Fra VLADIMIR
Franciscan priest. Active Ustasha.
KILENDAR, PAVAO
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
KLAPSIC, JOSIP
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
KLARIC, Fra ANTE
Franciscan priest in Tramosnjica who personally slaughtered a
number of Serbs. He too, felt there were 'better' methods of
killing than guns and bullets. Preached directly from the
pulpit that 'We donÄ…t have enough arms or knives, but we
should make knives out of old scythes and sickles so that
whenever we see a Serb, we can slay him.' Responsible for the
deaths of about 3,000 Serbs in Donja and Gornja Slatina,
Brcko, and the surrounding Serbian villages.
KLARIC, Dr. MARKO
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
KLARIC, TEPELJUK
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
KLEMEN, KRESO
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
KLOBIC, FRANJO
Catholic priest in Andrijevci. Active Ustasha.
KNEZOVIC, Fra Dr. OTON
Franciscan priest and chaplain‹in the Ustasha Army. Very
active Ustasha.
KOCIS, STJEPAN
Catholic curate in Bosanski Brod. Active Ustasha.
'THE ENTRY OF GERMAN TROOPS IN 1941 INTO CROATIA WAS GREETED
WITH SWASTIKA FLAGS. ACCORDING TO RELIABLE ESTIMATES, 95% OF
THE INHABITANTS WERE SYMPATHISING WITH GERMANY...'
‹Admiral Levisch Maritime Attache
to the Reich in his report to Berlin, March 9, 1941
KOLARER, Dr. NIROLA
Catholic priest and very active Ustasha.
KOLARIC, MIHOVIL
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
KOLB, BORIS
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
KOLB, RAMILO
Franciscan priest who terrorized Serbs to force them to
convert to Catholicism. Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
KONJEVOD, LOVRO
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
KONJEVOD, Don MARKO
Catholic priest in Prenje-Stolac who personally participated
in the mass massacres of Serbs. A very active and bloodthirsty
Ustasha.
KONZUL, JULIJE
Catholic priest in Mostar. Chaplain in the Ustasha Army. Very
active Ustasha.
KORDIC, MIRRO
Catholic curate in Supetarska Draga. Active Ustasha.
KOVACEVIC, FIRMUS
Franciscan priest from Virovitica. Very active Ustasha.
KOVACIC, PETAR
Catholic curate of St. Obitelj. Active Ustasha. Decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
KOZINA, ANTE
Catholic priest from Derventa and an active Ustasha.
KOZINOVIC, MIRON
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
KOZUL, Fra JULIJE
Franciscan priest and active ~stasha.
KRAJACIC, ILIJA
Catholic priest from Krizevci. A very active Ustasha.
Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
KRAJNOVIC, EMANUEL
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
KRALIK, FRANJO
Catholic priest and chief-editor of the Catholic magazine
'Katolicki Tjednik,' through which he propagated an
unrelenting hatred toward the Serbs. In his writings, he
insisted that Croatia could not be cleansed of Serbs in a
'nice way' and added: 'Pope Grgur VII didn't clean up the
Catholic Church in some nice way, but with force.'
KRALJ, AUGUSTIN
A Catholic preacher who terrorized Serbs to force them to
convert to Catholicism. He ordered one Serbian girl to be
publicly impaled because she refused to convert.
KRANJCEC, Dr. MATIJA
Catholic priest from Ozalj. An active Ustasha.
KRCMAR, FERDO
A Catholic curate and dean in Lepoglava who was a very active
Ustasha. Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
KRECAR, DJURO
Catholic curate in Dubrovnik and an active Ustasha. Decorated
by fascist Ante Pavelic.
KRESIR, MARTIN
Catholic curate in Rotimlje. A very active Ustasha. Decorated
by fascist Ante Pavelic.
KRISIC, JOZO
Franciscan priest and a very active Ustasha.
KRIST, JAKOV
Catholic priest in Osijek. An active Ustasha. Decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
KRISTEK, VENDELIN
Catholic curate from Djakovo. A terrorist.
KRIVOSIC, STJEPAN
Catholic student of theology. Active Ustasha.
KRODER, HINKO
Catholic curate and active Ustasha.
KROFLIN, DJURO
Catholic priest who used terror and torture ruthlessly to
force Serbs to convert to Catholicism.
KRZANIC, Fra Dr. KRSTO
Franciscan priest and professor in Sinj. An active Ustasha.
KUKUCMANIC STJEPAN
Catholic priest in Ramensko and a dean who personally
participated in the mass slaughter of Serbs. He was very close
to Archbishop Stepinac and worked under his directives. He
followed precisely the orders of 'The Council of Three' headed
by Stepinac.
KUDRIC, ALFONZ
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
KUHAR, IVAN
Catholic priest in Pecanj. An active Ustasha.
KUKINA, EUGEN
Catholic guardian in Trsten. A very active Ustasha. Decorated
by fascist Ante Pavelic.
KUKOLJA, DRAGUTIN
Catholic priest in Ogulin. Personally participated in mass
slaughters of Serbs.
KURKOLJA, Dr. STJEPAN
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
KVAS, R.
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
KVINTUS, IVAN
Catholic priest and professor. Very active Ustasha.
LACIC, ANTUN
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
LACKOVIC, Dr. STJEPAN
Catholic priest and close friend of Archbishop stepinac. Very
active Ustasha.
LACR, Dr. JOSIP
General Vicar-Bishop who was a Croatian contact with the
Vatican concerning the forced conversion of Serbs to
Catholicism. Instructed in his circular of September 26, 1941
that 'the soul-saving clergy perform the religious conversions
as fast as possible and without delay.' A member of 'The
Archbishopric Spiritual Board' in Zagreb. Worked closely with
Archbishop Stepinac. A very active Ustasha.
LASIC, Fra DIONIZIJE
Franciscan priest who was assigned to confiscate the
properties of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Crkveni Bok and
transform the building into a Catholic church. Used terror and
torture against surviving Serbs to force them to convert to
Catholicism.
LATINAC, METOD
Franciscan priest and terrorist. A very active Ustasha.
LAZICRI, IVAN
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
LEOPOLD, RARLO
The chief of the Jesuit Monastery in Sljeme, near Zagreb.
Active Ustasha.
LEPES, DANIEL
Catholic canonic from Trsten. Very active Ustasha. Decorated
by fascist Ante Pavelic.
LIBERNJAK, Fra BERNARDIN
Franciscan priest and chaplain in the Ustasha Army. An active
Ustasha.
LIRO, DEZIDERIJE
Catholic priest and bloodthirsty active Ustasha.
LIPOVAC, Dr. PRANJO
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
LIPOVAC, Fra ZVONRO
Catholic priest 'on duty' in the Croatian death camp,
Jasenovac, where he personally participated in the mass
slaughters of thousands of Serbs. Member of the 'Brotherhood
of St. Francis.' Assistant to Miroslav Filipovic-Majstorovic,
commandant of Jasenovac previously mentioned. Decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
LISICA, Fra CIPRIJAN
Franciscan priest who was an active Ustasha.
LIVAJUSIC, Fra MATRO
Franciscan priest who was an active Ustasha.
LIZATOVIC, ANTE
Catholic priest. Active Ustasha.
LJUBETIC, FRANJO
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
LONCAR, Fra SLOBODAN
Franciscan who was a very active Ustasha.
LONCARIC, Fra Dr. ANTE
Catholic priest and professor of theology as well as a
chaplain in the Ustasha Army. Member of the Ustasha
Parliament. Very active Ustasha. Twice decorated by fascist
Ante Pavelic.
LONCARIC, Dr. JOSIP
Catholic curate of St. Peter in Zagreb. An active Ustasha and
close collaborator of Archbishop Stepinac. Decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
LOVRENCIC, LEO
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
LOVRIC, Fra VJENCESLAV
Franciscan priest who was a very active Ustasha in the area
of Sibenik.
LUBURIC, SLAVKO
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
LURAC, RARLO
Catholic priest from Gradina who led the massacres of Serbs in
the area of Gradina.
LURIC, STJEPAN
Catholic curate and assistant commander of the Croati-an
concentration camp at Zepca.
LUTIC, Fra MLADEN
Guardian of the monastery of Sit in the county of Prozor.
Preached against the Serbs, insisting that they had to be
eliminated from The Independent State of Croatia and all their
property confiscated. Very active Ustasha.
MACH, Fra BORIVOJE
Franciscan priest in Vidosa. Very active Ustasha.
MADJEREC, Msgr. Dr. JURAJ
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
MAGAS, LJUBO
Catholic priest in Kolan-Barbat (Island of Pag). He
participated in the slaughtering of Serbs in the Croatian
concentration camp on Slano on the Island of Pag. A very
active Ustasha.
MAHALIC, IVAN
Catholic priest and chaplain in the Ustasha Army. An active
Ustasha.
MAJER, Dr. EMIL
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
MAJIC, ANDRIJA
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
MAJIC, Don ILIJA
Catholic priest from Duvno. Participated personally in the
slaughter of Serbs in Capljina.
MAJIC, LJUBO
A Jesuit priest from Travnik who was, after Max Luburic, the
most bloodthirsty killer in camp Jasenovac. He Killed
thousands of Serbs.
MAJIC, MARIJAN
Catholic priest who was a very active Ustasha. Decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
MAJIC, MIJO
Catholic curate in Mostar. Very active Ustasha. Decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
MAJSTOROVIC, Fra SRECRO
Guardian of the Zagreb monastery across from the capitol. He
terrorized Serbs to force them to convert to Catholicism.
Insisted that he worked according to the directives given to
him by Archbishop Stepinac.
MAJSTOROVIC, VINKO
Catholic priest and very active Ustasha.
MANDAC, JOVAN
Catholic priest and an active Ustasha.
MANDARIC, DON FILIP
Catholic priest in Lovrec-Cisti. Personally participated in
the slaughering of Serbs. A bloodthirsty Ustasha who was
decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
MANDIC, Dr. DOMINIK
Catholic priest and a very active Ustasha.
MARETIC, FERDO
Catholic curate in Stara Gradiska. A very active Ustasha.
Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
MARGETIC, MAMERTO
Franciscan priest who was a close friend of Archbishop
Stepinac.
MARGETIC, VLADIMIR
Catholic priest. Active Ustasha.
MARIC, Dr. DJURO
Catholic priest and terrorist. Terrorized and tortured Serbs
to force them to convert to Catholicism.
MARIJANOVIC, Fra MARKO
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha. Chaplain in the Ustasha
Army in Djakovo.
MARJANOVIC, DRAGUTIN
Catholic priest and chaplain in Slavonski Brod who was known
as a bloodthirsty Ustasha. Personally slaughtered hundreds of
Serbs.
MARJANOVIC, JAKOB
Catholic priest who, together with another priest, Petar
Sivjanovic, arranged the slaughter of over 500 Serbs in
Grubisno Polje.
MARKOVIC, IVAN
Catholic priest and chaplain who personally participated in
mass massacres of Serbs. Preferred to kill them instead of
converting them to Catholicism, because he insisted that they
would go back to Orthodoxy as soon as the opportunity arose.
MARKOVIC, JOSIP
Catholic catechist and active Ustasha.
MARKOVIC, Dr. TOMO
Catholic priest in Sarajevo. Active Ustasha who was decorated
by fascist Ante Pavelic.
MARKOVIC, DR. ZVONIMIR
Croatian canonic and active Ustasha.
MARTINAC, JOSIP
Catholic priest in Vocno who used terror and torture to force
Serbs to convert to Catholicism. Murdered those who refused to
convert. Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
MARTINAC, Fra PASRO
Franciscan priest and curate from Vocin. Active Ustasha.
MARTINCIC, MODESTO
Catholic priest who was very close to Archbishop Stepinac.
Very active Ustasha.
HASIC, DIONIZIJE
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
MASIC, NIKOLA
Catholic priest and professor in Gospic. Insisted that all
Serbs in Croatia must be annihilated. Very active Ustasha.
Decorated by fascist Ante Ante Pavelic.
MASINA, ZDRAVKO
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
MASLAC, DJURO
Catholic curate in Ravno. Very active Ustasha. Decorated by
fascist Ante Ante Pavelic.
MATACIN, Don ANTE
Catholic priest and very active Ustasha.
MATICA, FRANJO
Catholic priest who terrorized and tortured Serbs in Nova
Gradiska to force them to convert to Catholicism. At the trial
for War Crimes, he testified that he acted on orders of
Archbishop Stepinac.
MATIJEVIC, MIROSLAV
One of the most bloodthirsty of the Catholic priests in
Jasenovac. He led a group of killers on a rampage
that culminated in 950 Serbs being slaughtered in
Rulen Vakuf before going to Jasenovac.
MATKOVIC, IVICA
Another of the bloodt irsty Catholic priests conducting
executions in Jasenovac. He ordered the killing of thousands
of Serbs in the camp, many times participating himself in the
murders. He would then hold religious services, sometimes
still in bloody clothes from having used a knife to kill his
victims. He held these services to absolve the murderers of
any sins.
MATONICRI, AMBROZ
Catholic priest and chaplain in the Ustasha Army. Very active
Ustasha.
MATOSIC, FRANJO
Catholic curate and canonic in Zagreb. An active Ustasha.
Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
MATZENAUER, Fra FRANJO
Franciscan priest and chaplain in the Ustasr.a Army. A very
active Ustasha. Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
MEDIC, Fra JUSTIN
Franciscan priest. Active Ustasha.
MEDVED, ANTUN
Catholic curate who pointed out the Serbs to be slaughtered in
his jurisdiction.
MEDVED, BERNARDIN
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
MEDVED, PETAR
Catholic priest in Cetingrad. Led a band of killers to the
village of Borovo Brdo and executed all the Serbs found there.
MEDVEDOVIC, Fra BERNARD
Catholic priest who was an active Ustasha.
MESARDS, VLADIMIR
Catholic catechist and active Ustasha.
MESNER, MIRKO
Catholic priest who was an active Ustasha. Terrorized and
tortured Serbs to force them to convert to Catholicism.
Murdered those that refused.
MICEVIC, STJEPAN
Catholic priest from Nova Gradiska who was an active Ustasha.
Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
MIHACEVIC, Msgr. TADEJ
Catholic curate and very active Ustasha.
MIHALIC, IVAN
Catholic priest and chaplain. Very active Ustasha.
MIHALJEVIC, Fra ANTE-RAVAZAR
Franciscan priest. Active Ustasha.
MIHALJEVIC, Dr. JERKO
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
MIHELCIC, Msgr. IVAN
Catholic curate from Zagreb. A very active Ustasha. Decorated
by fascist Ante Pavelic.
MIJAROVIC, ANTUN
Catholic curate in Hrtkovici. An active Ustasha.
MIKAN, IVAN
Catholic curate in Ogulin who was responsible for the deaths
of hundreds of Serbs thrown into the Jadovno pits. He was the
principal initiator of all the massacres of Serbs in Ogulin
and the surrounding area. Personally led bands of killers to
kill Serbs and pillage thelr homes.
MIKEC, RUDOLF
Catholic priest in Novi Grad who personally participated in
committing atrocities against Serbs and killing them.
MIKLIC, KRUNO
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
MIKLIC, DON ANTE
Catholic curate from Postolac and chaplain in the Ustasha
Army. Very active Ustasha.
MIKULIC, JOSIP
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
MILANOVIC, Fra STANKO-LITRE
Catholic priest who participated personally in the mass
massacres of Serbs. Very active Ustasha. Decorated by fascist
Ante Pavelic.
MILETA, JERONIM
Catholic bishop of Sibenik. Active Ustasha who instructed the
priests in his jurisdiction on how to cleanse Croatia of
Serbs, using terror and murder.
MILETIC, AMBROZIJE
Franclscan priest from the Franciscan Monastery in Osijek.
Terrorized and tortured Serbs to force them to convert to
Catholicism.
MILETIC, IVAN
Catholic priest and chaplain in the Ustasha Army who
personally participated in the slaughter of Serbs. Decorated
by fascist Ante Pavelic.
MILIC, Fra DANE
Franciscan priest who was an active Ustasha.
MILIC, Don PAVAO
Catholic priest who was a very active Ustasha. Ruthlessly
promoted hatred toward Serbs.
MILICIC, DON PAVAO
Catholic priest who was a very active Ustasha.
MILINOVIC, ZVONKO
Catholic curate and active Ustasha.
MILOSEVIC, MIROSLAV
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
MILOSEVIC, TRIPO
Cathclic curate and active Ustasha.
MIOC, Fra BORIVOJ
Franciscan priest. Very active Ustasha. Decorated by fascist
Ante Pavelic.
MIRKOVIC, JOSIP
Catholic catechist and active Ustasha.
MISILO, ALOJZIJE
Catholic curate and active Ustasha.
MISILO, KRUNOSLAV
Franciscan priest and professor who was a very active Ustasha.
Decorated ky fascist Ante Pavelic.
MITROVIC, ACO:
Catholic curate from Petrijevac. Very active Ustasha.
Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
MLADENOVIC, Fra ANTUN
Franciscan priest who used terror and torture to force Serbs
to convert to Catholicism. Personally participated in the
massacres of Serbs who refused to convert.
MLADINA, JURAJ
Catholic curate and active Ustasha.
MODRIC, Fra IVAN
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
MOGUS, MATE
Franciscan priest and very active Ustasha. The first Ustasha
commandant in the District of Udbina. At a meeting in Udbina
on June 13, 1941, he preached the following: 'Look, people, at
these 16 brave Ustashi, who have 16,000 bullets and who will
kill 16,000 Serbs, after which we will divide among us in a
brotherly manner the Mutilic and Krbava fields.' This speech
was the initiation of the massacres of thousands of Serbs in
the Udbina District.
MOMCILOVIC, FRANJO
Catholic curate and active Ustasha.
MRDJEN, Fra VJEKOSLAV
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
MULLER, JOSIP
Catholic priest and professor. Active Ustasha.
MUSA, Fra TRPIMIR
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
MUSARA, FRANJO
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
NAKIC, Dr. VJENCESLAV
Catholic guardian of the Monastery of St. Ante in Rnin. A very
active Ustasha. Decorated by fascist Ante Pavelic.
NALETILIC, Fra STJEPAN
Franciscan priest who participated personally in the slaughter
of Serbs in Duvno Field. A chaplain in the Ustasha Army. Very
active Ustasha.
NANDAC, Fra IVAN
Franciscan priest and active Ustasha.
NATKOV, Don STIPE
Catholic priest who was personally responsible for the deaths
of hundreds of Serbs.
NAZOR, DJURO
Catnolic curate in Goroznica. Active Ustasha.
NEDIC, MARKO
Catholic priest and active Ustasha.
NESTOR, MAKS VALDEMAR
Catholic curate in Drvar. A very active Ustasha. Decorated by
fascist Ante Pavelic.
NEZIC, Dr. DRAGUTIN
Catholic theologician and active Ustasha.
NIEDZIELSKI, Dr. FELIX
Catholic priest who was an assistant to the bloodthirsty
Ustasha, Gutic. Together, they were two of
the most barbarous Croats during World War II. Niedzielski was
head of a Croatian Youth Organization and intensely promoted a
hatred of Serbs among them. Leader of the 'Crusaders' in
Croatia. Elected to publicly praise Ante Pavelic. In one of
those praises, published in Å‚NedeljaË› (Sunday), a Croatian
newspaper published in Zagreb, on April 27, 1941, he was
quoted as saying: 'Glory to our Lord! Gratitude to Hitler, and
infinite honor and glory to our leader Ante Pavelic.'
Personally slaughtered Serbs with relish. A very close friend
of Archbishop Stepinac.
par...@my-dejanews.com
"firefly" <hvi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> What was wrong with them. Why they don't slaughter you. You must be very
> ugly, is the reason, why you are a live.
>
DEATH TO ANYONE, NOT EVEN YOU!
sco...@world.net
par...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7c73jn$7...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> "firefly" <hvi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > What was wrong with them. Why they don't slaughter you. You must be very
> > ugly, is the reason, why you are a live.
> >
> YOU SEE PAYS TO BE NOT AS PRETTY AS YOU ARE FIRESHIT! HOWEVER, I DO NOT WISH
> DEATH TO ANYONE, NOT EVEN YOU!
No?
What about:
Mostarac wrote:
>
> pozdravljam moga druga skorpiona i pridruzujem ti se
> SMRT FASIZMU SLOBODA NARODU
> bosanac
SERO wrote:
SMRT SCORPIONU I BOSANCU-SLOBODA NARODU!
Opet ga malkice kenjas, a?
Dat cu ti priliku da mi to kazes u lice.
bab...@netscape.net
"Goran" <bos...@beotel.yu> wrote:
>
>
> --
> +++++++++++++++++++++++
> Veliki Srbin te posmatra!
> Alexander,
> >or in Bosnia and Croatia towards other nations, in comparison to that of
> >Austria, speaks for itself.
>
> Narodna stranka and bishop Strossmayer.
Well....how does this explain that in 1921, the newly-ratified "Vidovdan"
constitution did not grant autonomy to any of the unitary state's
minorities?
The leader of the Croats peasants' party was assassinated in 1928, and
after the opening of the separatist Croat assembly in June 1928, King
Alexander of Serbia proclaimed a "royal dictatorship". He proceeded to
organize Yugoslavia into 9 "banats" with no regard no ethnic or
historical boundaries.
You complain about Austria, yet as soon as Serbs had the chance, they
created a state with conditions any one can see as far worse than
Austria's for minorities.
> Croats want to free themselves from
> Austria and Hungary.
As usual, who knows? No referendums either way. Incidental evidence
suggests nothing more mradical that Part Quebecoius (sic)...
> >> +AD4-Incidentally, Ukrainians in Bosnia suffered a lot at the hands of
> >Chetniks.
>
> "Chetniks"?
During W.W.II....
> >> Incidentally, they suffered under the ustashi, for that, they rebelled
> with
> >> the Serbs of Kozara and payed with their lives.
> >Chetniks and ustashe weren't so dissimilar I guess...ustashe just had the
> >support of the German government and could get away with more...
>
> Please avoid talking on something you don't know much about.
I am under the impression that both chetnik and ustashe massacred
civilians. The ustashe, backed by Germany, were able to kill 700,000
and to ethnically cleanse some areas. The Chetniks were no better,
only in a position to do less damage. Or am I wrong?
> >OK. So those actions were based on ignorance. It doesn't justify them.
>
> It is my impression that noone is trying to justify actions against
> Ukrainians, just to correct your version for reasons things happened.
>
> >> +AD4APg- +AD4-It would seem the Serbs viewed the Ukrainians' lives as
> >> +ACI-more expendable+ACI- +AD4APg- +AD4-by placing them in cannon fire.
> >> +AD4APg- +AD4APg- Oh come on+ACE- Most Serbs did not care whether they
> were >
> >Ukrianians or not,
> >They cared enough to put them in positions where their lives were more at
> >risk.
>
> Possible, but not for being Ukrainians but for not being trustworthy. It was
> done with all soldiers who weren't trusworthy enough. Was I saying you this
> once already?
It seems quite likely that non-Serbs would by definition be considered
"untrustworthy" - after all why would someone want to fight in someone
else's ethnic war?
Babai
> >> the +AD4APg- same was done to Serbian deserters if you must know.
> >OK. Once again, they weren't Serbs. It's quite natural for a non-Serb to
> >not want to fight for a greater Serbian homeland. It's a different
> situation
> >than being a deserter. As you have shown, there was no real state to belong
> >to at that time, just a bunch of ethnic armies.
>
> States were in process of forming. In bigger cities as Banjaluka they were
> functioning.
>
> >> Austrians destroyed Serbian churches, schools and killed innocent
> civilians
> >> in areas that they occupied during the 1915-1918 period.
> >You mean areas not part of pre-war Serbia? Then they were Serb-like.
>
> I think he means about aereas PART of pre-war Serbia, as Macva and Podrinje,
> aereas near river Drina (in Serbia).
> But what even if he means about aereas not part of pre-war Serbia?
Goran
Ovaj gad Seredin zagadjuje ove grupe i svijet svojim postojanjem.
Ako neko obraca paznju na njega samo jos vise zagadjuje.
Ne mozes da ga ignorises pa nek crkne?
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Veliki Srbin te posmatra!
sco...@world.net wrote in message <36E894AE...@world.net>...
Igor
>Veliki Srbin te posmatra!
>Alexander,
>>or in Bosnia and Croatia towards other nations, in comparison to that of
>>Austria, speaks for itself.
>
>Austria and Hungary.
True, and you can always say, if the Croats did not want to join they why
did they agree in December of 1918 and again in 1919 and again in 1945.
>>> Incidentally, they suffered under the ustashi, for that, they rebelled
>with
>>> the Serbs of Kozara and payed with their lives.
>>Chetniks and ustashe weren't so dissimilar I guess...ustashe just had the
>>support of the German government and could get away with more...
>
>Please avoid talking on something you don't know much about.
Goran is right, you are venturing into uncharted part of history for even
the biggest historians, but saying that "chetniks" were the same as
"ustashis" is absurd. First of all, because the word chetnik designates a
member of a "cheta", or an armed group, so, if I and say another person, be
he whatever nationality, join up in an armed division and form our own, we
would correctly become "chetniks". And finally, because the "chetniks"
formed by the local populace was in order to defend oneself and one's family
from ustashis and Germans.
>>> the +AD4APg- same was done to Serbian deserters if you must know.
>>OK. Once again, they weren't Serbs. It's quite natural for a non-Serb to
>>not want to fight for a greater Serbian homeland. It's a different
>situation
>>than being a deserter. As you have shown, there was no real state to
belong
>>to at that time, just a bunch of ethnic armies.
>States were in process of forming. In bigger cities as Banjaluka they were
>functioning.
True, and also, the RS had been formed, a state in its own right, the law on
moblization and conscription was the same for Socialist Yugoslavia and Rep.
Srpska.
>>> Austrians destroyed Serbian churches, schools and killed innocent
>civilians
>>> in areas that they occupied during the 1915-1918 period.
>>You mean areas not part of pre-war Serbia? Then they were Serb-like.
>
>I think he means about aereas PART of pre-war Serbia, as Macva and
Podrinje,
>aereas near river Drina (in Serbia).
>But what even if he means about aereas not part of pre-war Serbia?
Yes I do mean the Macva and the Podrimlje, I did not intend Bosnia,
Vojvodina also but you can include them also and even some other parts of
pre-war Serbia. In fact, the Orthodox Church of Cacak in central Serbia, was
riddled with machine gun fire and half-destroyed and Serbs in bordering
regions to pre-war Serbia, in Vojvodina, Bosnia and Herzegovina were
ethnically cleansed out by force, expecially in Eastern Bosnia. As an
example, Srebrenica was once a Serbian village, in 1991, it had a 70 %
muslim population, in all about 50,000 Serbs were forced out of the
Podrimlje region in Bosnia adjacent to Serbia. Many Serbs also had to face
show trials and some were even sent to "concentration like" camps, notably
one in Doboj which had about 47,000 "prisonners" and Foca is said to have
seen, according to John Lampe, "the first incidence of active ethnic
cleansing" with massacres and mass deportations. Although I disagree (Kosovo
in 1690 and Thrace in 14th century) you can obviously see that the Austrians
were not as good as you claim.
sco...@world.net
Goran wrote:
> Scorpio, da te pitam nesto.
> Ovaj gad Seredin zagadjuje ove grupe i svijet svojim postojanjem.
> Ako neko obraca paznju na njega samo jos vise zagadjuje.
> Ne mozes da ga ignorises pa nek crkne?
Nastojaju Gorane, koliko god to budem mogao.
Pokusavam ga odvuci od drugih tako da se samnom dobro izmori, pa da vise ne
pise.
Radi dosta crosspostinga pa bi mogao naje... i od svog ISP-a.
Ja cu se potruditi da ih obavjestim.
Sto se tice svojih izjava, vec je zaradio 28 dozivotnih, jer starije ljude ne
smijes na elektricnu stolicu ... u PEDERpanovom slucaju je steta struje.
Sve u svemu, nesto cemo pokusati napraviti, trebam se konzultirati sa drugima.
pozdrav
scorpio
Goran
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Veliki Srbin te posmatra!
>>I think he means about aereas PART of pre-war Serbia, as Macva and
>>Podrinje, aereas near river Drina (in Serbia).
>>But what even if he means about aereas not part of pre-war Serbia?
>
>Yes I do mean the Macva and the Podrimlje, I did not intend Bosnia,
>Vojvodina also but you can include them also and even some other parts of
>pre-war Serbia. In fact, the Orthodox Church of Cacak in central Serbia,
was
>riddled with machine gun fire and half-destroyed and Serbs in bordering
>regions to pre-war Serbia, in Vojvodina, Bosnia and Herzegovina were
>ethnically cleansed out by force, expecially in Eastern Bosnia. As an
>example, Srebrenica was once a Serbian village, in 1991, it had a 70 %
>muslim population, in all about 50,000 Serbs were forced out of the
>Podrimlje region in Bosnia adjacent to Serbia. Many Serbs also had to face
>show trials and some were even sent to "concentration like" camps, notably
>one in Doboj which had about 47,000 "prisonners" and Foca is said to have
>seen, according to John Lampe, "the first incidence of active ethnic
>cleansing" with massacres and mass deportations. Although I disagree
(Kosovo
>in 1690 and Thrace in 14th century) you can obviously see that the
Austrians
>were not as good as you claim.
>
Agree 99% of things Igor, just to correct one small thing, it is Podrinje
(near the Drina river), not Podrimlje (I guess this would be near Drim
river).
bab...@netscape.net
"Igor" <ig...@info-internet.net> wrote:
> >
> >Ideas of Yugoslavia are not Serbian but originaly Croatian, from Croat
> >Narodna stranka and bishop Strossmayer. Croats want to free themselves from
> >Austria and Hungary.
>
> True, and you can always say, if the Croats did not want to join they why
> did they agree in December of 1918 and again in 1919 and again in 1945.
Perhaps they felt that it would be a federal state with individual
cultural rights? Like A-H but totally Slavic?
If you recall, the Vidovdan Constitution of 1921 did not allow any
minorities within what was now a unitary state.
Also remember that after the opening of a separatist Croat Assembly, King
Alexander proclaimed a "royal dictatorship", prohibited other political
parties, and reorganized the state into 9 Banats with no regard for
ethnic/historical boundaries.
When "parliamentary rule" was reestablished, it was done on the basis
of "unity lists" - basically how the Communists "democratically" gained
control of eastern Europe in the late 1940's.
The Ustashe actually formed as a reaction to such oppression....
Also, maybe Croats "joining" (and here I am particularly suspicious of the
date 1945) was similar to Ukraine "joining" the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics?
Please write more....
> Goran is right, you are venturing into uncharted part of history for even
> the biggest historians, but saying that "chetniks" were the same as
> "ustashis" is absurd. First of all, because the word chetnik designates a
> member of a "cheta", or an armed group, so, if I and say another person, be
> he whatever nationality, join up in an armed division and form our own, we
> would correctly become "chetniks". And finally, because the "chetniks"
> formed by the local populace was in order to defend oneself and one's family
> from ustashis and Germans.
See above. The murderous ustashe also were originally formed as a
reaction to pre-war Serb oppression. At any rate, bands of armed Serbs
terrorized Ukrainian villagers.
>
> >States were in process of forming. In bigger cities as Banjaluka they were
> >functioning.
>
> True, and also, the RS had been formed, a state in its own right, the law on
> moblization and conscription was the same for Socialist Yugoslavia and Rep.
> Srpska.
Was there a referendum :)? But I was reacting to the statement made
I believe by Goran that there was no state in Bosnia, just ethnic camps.
> Yes I do mean the Macva and the Podrimlje, I did not intend Bosnia,
> Vojvodina also but you can include them also and even some other parts of
> pre-war Serbia. In fact, the Orthodox Church of Cacak in central Serbia, was
> riddled with machine gun fire and half-destroyed and Serbs in bordering
> regions to pre-war Serbia, in Vojvodina, Bosnia and Herzegovina were
> ethnically cleansed out by force, expecially in Eastern Bosnia. As an
> example, Srebrenica was once a Serbian village, in 1991, it had a 70 %
> muslim population, in all about 50,000 Serbs were forced out of the
> Podrimlje region in Bosnia adjacent to Serbia. Many Serbs also had to face
> show trials and some were even sent to "concentration like" camps, notably
> one in Doboj which had about 47,000 "prisonners" and Foca is said to have
> seen, according to John Lampe, "the first incidence of active ethnic
> cleansing" with massacres and mass deportations. Although I disagree (Kosovo
> in 1690 and Thrace in 14th century) you can obviously see that the Austrians
> were not as good as you claim.
>
This information leads me to conclude that, during the war, the Austrians
behaved in a savage way towards Serbs - that they were just as bad as
Serbs are during war towards their respective minorities (and do recall
that this was a time of war).
I think that such behavior was very unfortunate, and stupid - even if
Austria-Hungary had won the war the Serb population would have been
permanently alienated by those actions and, ultimately, A-H would have
lost the province anyways.
Just as Croats and Muslims will never again share a state with Serbs.
Still, none of this would have happened had not Princip and his Serb
Government handlers not assassinated the "Slavophil" Archduke, thus
allowing extremists to take over. I still maintain that prewar A-H was a
viable and necessary state in east-central Europe, and subsequent history
shows this.
And I also maintain that, had Franz Ferdinand lived, abuses towards Serbs
and others would not have been tolerated - that the Slavic people would
have been able to exist in a federal state with cultural and internal
autonomy (please see my numerous other posts under "Austria and Slavs",
etc. for the evidence of this conclusion).
Babai
Igor
+AD4APg- +AD4-Ideas of Yugoslavia are not Serbian but originaly Croatian, from Croat
+AD4APg- +AD4-Narodna stranka and bishop Strossmayer. Croats want to free themselves
from
+AD4APg- +AD4-Austria and Hungary.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- True, and you can always say, if the Croats did not want to join they why
+AD4APg- did they agree in December of 1918 and again in 1919 and again in 1945.
+AD4-
+AD4-Perhaps they felt that it would be a federal state with individual
+AD4-cultural rights? Like A-H but totally Slavic?
Actually, they had cultural and political rights, but indeed they were
hoping for more, and of course, to either rule over Serbs or get their piece
of the pie, from the Serbs victory.
+AD4-If you recall, the Vidovdan Constitution of 1921 did not allow any
+AD4-minorities within what was now a unitary state.
What are you talking about?
+AD4-Also remember that after the opening of a separatist Croat Assembly, King
+AD4-Alexander proclaimed a +ACI-royal dictatorship+ACI-, prohibited other political
+AD4-parties, and reorganized the state into 9 Banats with no regard for
+AD4-ethnic/historical boundaries.
First of all, Aleksandar was a Yugoslav, he imposed a dictatorship after he
realized, like Tito, that the only way to keep the Yugoslavs from killing
each other was by force. The Banovinas (not Banats) were actually done so
that all pre-Yugoslav tribal and religious differences would be forgotten,
hence the changing of +ACI-Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes+ACI- into
+ACI-Yugoslavia+ACI-. Aleksandar did prohibit parties, most Croat that were viewed
as provocative, such as the party of extreme-right and Pavelic's party, who
in WW II joined with Mussolini and Hitler and you know what he did...
Overall, when Aleksandar was murdered in 1934 by a Bulgarian terrorist paid
by the Ustashis of Pavelic, his death was mourned by Croats and Serbs alike.
Most Croats said : +ACI-even if we did oppose his dictatorial measures, we now
know that our biggest defence from Italian aspirations is gone+ACI-. Overall,
Aleksandar is not viewed positively by Serbs, so you can bash him all you
want...
+AD4-When +ACI-parliamentary rule+ACI- was reestablished, it was done on the basis
+AD4-of +ACI-unity lists+ACI- - basically how the Communists +ACI-democratically+ACI- gained
+AD4-control of eastern Europe in the late 1940's.
Yes, I know, it was dictatorial, but both that and the communists were the
only way to keep Yugoslavia together, I am not saying it was good just what
is fact...
+AD4-The Ustashe actually formed as a reaction to such oppression....
No no no, this is the biggest excuse of the ustashi apologists, the Croats,
in a sense, were just as opressed as Serbs, both had their identities denied
and transformed into Yugoslavs first and Serbs or Croats second. This really
does not justify the killing of nearly 1 million innocent civlian non-Croats
by the Ustashi, what did the Gypsies and Jews do to +ACI-opress+ACI- Croats?
+AD4-Also, maybe Croats +ACI-joining+ACI- (and here I am particularly suspicious of the
+AD4-date 1945) was similar to Ukraine +ACI-joining+ACI- the Union of Soviet Socialist
+AD4-Republics?
PErhaps, but there were no Serbs to force them, they had a choice, be left
on the side of the vanquished agressors or come and be the +ACI-good guys+ACI-,
guess what they picked and why? Who used whom? For the second time+ACE-
+AD4APg- Goran is right, you are venturing into uncharted part of history for even
+AD4APg- the biggest historians, but saying that +ACI-chetniks+ACI- were the same as
+AD4APg- +ACI-ustashis+ACI- is absurd. First of all, because the word chetnik designates a
+AD4APg- member of a +ACI-cheta+ACI-, or an armed group, so, if I and say another person,
be
+AD4APg- he whatever nationality, join up in an armed division and form our own,
we
+AD4APg- would correctly become +ACI-chetniks+ACI-. And finally, because the +ACI-chetniks+ACI-
+AD4APg- formed by the local populace was in order to defend oneself and one's
family
+AD4APg- from ustashis and Germans.
+AD4-
+AD4-See above. The murderous ustashe also were originally formed as a
+AD4-reaction to pre-war Serb oppression. At any rate, bands of armed Serbs
+AD4-terrorized Ukrainian villagers.
See my answer above, and there were no +ACI-bands of Serbs terrorizing+ACI-
Ukrainians, I though you said they were forcefully conscripted?
+AD4APg- +AD4-States were in process of forming. In bigger cities as Banjaluka they
were
+AD4APg- +AD4-functioning.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- True, and also, the RS had been formed, a state in its own right, the law
on
+AD4APg- moblization and conscription was the same for Socialist Yugoslavia and
Rep.
+AD4APg- Srpska.
+AD4-
+AD4-Was there a referendum :)?
Of course :)))
+AD4-But I was reacting to the statement made
+AD4-I believe by Goran that there was no state in Bosnia, just ethnic camps.
What he meant was probably that there was no +ACI-unitary Bosnian Republic+ACI- as
the muslim government of Sarajevo naively claimed.
+AD4APg- Yes I do mean the Macva and the Podrimlje, I did not intend Bosnia,
+AD4APg- Vojvodina also but you can include them also and even some other parts of
+AD4APg- pre-war Serbia. In fact, the Orthodox Church of Cacak in central Serbia,
was
+AD4APg- riddled with machine gun fire and half-destroyed and Serbs in bordering
+AD4APg- regions to pre-war Serbia, in Vojvodina, Bosnia and Herzegovina were
+AD4APg- ethnically cleansed out by force, expecially in Eastern Bosnia. As an
+AD4APg- example, Srebrenica was once a Serbian village, in 1991, it had a 70 +ACU-
+AD4APg- muslim population, in all about 50,000 Serbs were forced out of the
+AD4APg- Podrimlje region in Bosnia adjacent to Serbia. Many Serbs also had to
face
+AD4APg- show trials and some were even sent to +ACI-concentration like+ACI- camps,
notably
+AD4APg- one in Doboj which had about 47,000 +ACI-prisonners+ACI- and Foca is said to have
+AD4APg- seen, according to John Lampe, +ACI-the first incidence of active ethnic
+AD4APg- cleansing+ACI- with massacres and mass deportations. Although I disagree
(Kosovo
+AD4APg- in 1690 and Thrace in 14th century) you can obviously see that the
Austrians
+AD4APg- were not as good as you claim.
+AD4APg-This information leads me to conclude that, during the war, the Austrians
+AD4-behaved in a savage way towards Serbs - that they were just as bad as
+AD4-Serbs are during war towards their respective minorities (and do recall
+AD4-that this was a time of war).
Once again with the same shots, in both cases there was indeed a war going
on, but actually, there was no war in B-H in WW I.
+AD4-I think that such behavior was very unfortunate, and stupid - even if
+AD4-Austria-Hungary had won the war the Serb population would have been
+AD4-permanently alienated by those actions and, ultimately, A-H would have
+AD4-lost the province anyways.
+AD4-Just as Croats and Muslims will never again share a state with Serbs.
+AD4-Still, none of this would have happened had not Princip and his Serb
+AD4-Government handlers not assassinated the +ACI-Slavophil+ACI- Archduke, thus
+AD4-allowing extremists to take over. I still maintain that prewar A-H was a
+AD4-viable and necessary state in east-central Europe, and subsequent history
+AD4-shows this.
As I said before, the Serbian government had not organized Princip, if one
member of some governent agency was in it does not make the whole country
accountable, Pasic or the King had not idea about it. Extremists were always
in power in Austria, see the Catlle Wars (1906-1909), Bosnian annection
(1909), ultimatums during Balkan wars (1912-1913).
Did you know how the murder actually happened? One of the would be-assassins
threw a bomb but missed and wounded a guard. Then Princip lost his chance
and freeked out before firing, he then decided to go to a cafe, on his way
there, he saw the car stranded in a street, the archduke having changed
itinerary in order to visit his guard in the hospital, boom+ACE- Gavrilo aimed
at the minister of +ACI-defence+ACI- (I believe) and shot his wife instead and then
Franz himself. (some theorists say that Franz jumped behind his wife in
order to avoid the shot+ACEAIQ-)
+AD4-And I also maintain that, had Franz Ferdinand lived, abuses towards Serbs
+AD4-and others would not have been tolerated - that the Slavic people would
+AD4-have been able to exist in a federal state with cultural and internal
+AD4-autonomy (please see my numerous other posts under +ACI-Austria and Slavs+ACI-,
+AD4-etc. for the evidence of this conclusion).
Perhaps, but this one man did not controll what was happening in B-H, and if
he cared so much for the Serbs' well-being, why did he have to parade
exactly on Vidovdan, he could have refused.
bab...@netscape.net
"Igor" <ig...@info-internet.net> wrote:
>
>
> +AD4-Perhaps they felt that it would be a federal state with individual
> +AD4-cultural rights? Like A-H but totally Slavic?
>
> Actually, they had cultural and political rights, but indeed they were
> hoping for more, and of course, to either rule over Serbs or get their piece
> of the pie, from the Serbs victory.
??? The state was not federal, especially after the "royal dictatorship".
Croatia was not autonomous. Their rights were more limited than, say, under
A-H...
>
> +AD4-If you recall, the Vidovdan Constitution of 1921 did not allow any
> +AD4-minorities within what was now a unitary state.
>
> What are you talking about?
Sorry...it was supposed to be "did not allow any autonomy"...
> +AD4-Also remember that after the opening of a separatist Croat Assembly, King
> +AD4-Alexander proclaimed a +ACI-royal dictatorship+ACI-, prohibited other
political
> +AD4-parties, and reorganized the state into 9 Banats with no regard for
> +AD4-ethnic/historical boundaries.
>
> First of all, Aleksandar was a Yugoslav, he imposed a dictatorship after he
> realized, like Tito, that the only way to keep the Yugoslavs from killing
> each other was by force.
How about, simply, seperation?
> The Banovinas (not Banats) were actually done so
> that all pre-Yugoslav tribal and religious differences would be forgotten,
> hence the changing of +ACI-Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes+ACI- into
> +ACI-Yugoslavia+ACI-. Aleksandar did prohibit parties, most Croat that were
>viewed as provocative, such as the party of extreme-right and Pavelic's party,
> who in WW II joined with Mussolini and Hitler and you know what he did...
> Overall, when Aleksandar was murdered in 1934 by a Bulgarian terrorist paid
> by the Ustashis of Pavelic, his death was mourned by Croats and Serbs alike.
> Most Croats said : +ACI-even if we did oppose his dictatorial measures, we now
> know that our biggest defence from Italian aspirations is gone+ACI-. Overall,
> Aleksandar is not viewed positively by Serbs, so you can bash him all you
> want...
I hereby defer my opinions re: Serbs vs. Croats to you. My knowledge is
limited primarily to Austrian/Ukrainian concerns.
I was under the strong impression that Serbs in Yugoslavia were comparable to
Russians in the Russian Empire and the USSR. While not convinced otherwise,
I think a Croat would be better able to deal with this.
It does seem, however, that given the Croat W.W.II reaction (i.e. going
"ape-sh*t"), there was some kind of serious discrimination involved. Similar
brutalities (such as the Ukrainian "haidamaks" described so vividly in
Shevchenko's poem of the same name) are likewise the products of oppression.
Grass-roots violence such as that tends to have a cause.
But I'll leave this particular point to the Croats...
>
> Yes, I know, it was dictatorial, but both that and the communists were the
> only way to keep Yugoslavia together, I am not saying it was good just what
> is fact...
>
> +AD4-The Ustashe actually formed as a reaction to such oppression....
>
> No no no, this is the biggest excuse of the ustashi apologists, the Croats,
> in a sense, were just as opressed as Serbs, both had their identities denied
> and transformed into Yugoslavs first and Serbs or Croats second. This really
> does not justify the killing of nearly 1 million innocent civlian non-Croats
> by the Ustashi, what did the Gypsies and Jews do to +ACI-opress+ACI- Croats?
For whatever reason they seem to have believed themselves oppressed by Serbs.
Out of curiosity, what was the religion of the unified "Yugoslavian" nation?
Were "Yugoslavs" supposed to write in Cyrillic or Latin scripts?
I have a suspicion that the "Yugoslav" person may have been comparable to the
Russian-speaking "soviet man". But I may be wrong.
Of course this doesn't justify anything. It merely explaims.
Many serial killers were also abused...yet this is no excuse. It does
provide an explanation however.
> +AD4-See above. The murderous ustashe also were originally formed as a
> +AD4-reaction to pre-war Serb oppression. At any rate, bands of armed Serbs
> +AD4-terrorized Ukrainian villagers.
>
> See my answer above, and there were no +ACI-bands of Serbs terrorizing+ACI-
> Ukrainians, I though you said they were forcefully conscripted?
During W.W.II, they were terrorizing. In the 1990's, forcible conscription
was used.
>
> +AD4-
> +AD4-Was there a referendum :)?
>
> Of course :)))
I didn't know that. Was it pre- or post- cleansing?
>
.......cut.........
>
> +AD4APg-This information leads me to conclude that, during the war, the
> Austrians
> +AD4-behaved in a savage way towards Serbs - that they were just as bad as
> +AD4-Serbs are during war towards their respective minorities (and do recall
> +AD4-that this was a time of war).
>
> Once again with the same shots, in both cases there was indeed a war going
> on, but actually, there was no war in B-H in WW I.
Nor in Banja Luka and some other areas where Ukrainian churches, schools,
and/or monastaries were blown up.
> +AD4-I think that such behavior was very unfortunate, and stupid - even if
> +AD4-Austria-Hungary had won the war the Serb population would have been
> +AD4-permanently alienated by those actions and, ultimately, A-H would have
> +AD4-lost the province anyways.
>
> +AD4-Just as Croats and Muslims will never again share a state with Serbs.
>
> +AD4-Still, none of this would have happened had not Princip and his Serb
> +AD4-Government handlers not assassinated the +ACI-Slavophil+ACI- Archduke,
thus
> +AD4-allowing extremists to take over. I still maintain that prewar A-H was a
> +AD4-viable and necessary state in east-central Europe, and subsequent history
> +AD4-shows this.
>
> As I said before, the Serbian government had not organized Princip, if one
> member of some governent agency was in it does not make the whole country
> accountable,
If it was the head of the intelligence department Dimitrijevic?
> Pasic or the King had not idea about it.
Pasic tried to warn the Austrian government indirectly, but could not do so
explicitly because he feared Dimitrijevic ("Apis"). He knew armed Serbs were
coming on that day, with plans to assasinate the Archduke.
> Extremists were always
> in power in Austria, see the Catlle Wars (1906-1909), Bosnian annection
> (1909), ultimatums during Balkan wars (1912-1913).
Ah, but Franz was about to clear all that up!
>
> Did you know how the murder actually happened? One of the would be-assassins
> threw a bomb but missed and wounded a guard. Then Princip lost his chance
> and freeked out before firing, he then decided to go to a cafe, on his way
> there, he saw the car stranded in a street, the archduke having changed
> itinerary in order to visit his guard in the hospital, boom+ACE- Gavrilo aimed
> at the minister of +ACI-defence+ACI- (I believe) and shot his wife instead and
> then Franz himself. (some theorists say that Franz jumped behind his wife in
> order to avoid the shot+ACEAIQ-)
I have read several accounts of the assassination, and have never heard of the
last part. Is this the kind of slander they wrote about him in Yugoslavia?
I wonder what other nonsense there was...
I wonder how the corpulent Archduke could have "jumped" behind his wife
in the back seat of a car?
> +AD4-And I also maintain that, had Franz Ferdinand lived, abuses towards Serbs
> +AD4-and others would not have been tolerated - that the Slavic people would
> +AD4-have been able to exist in a federal state with cultural and internal
> +AD4-autonomy (please see my numerous other posts under +ACI-Austria and
Slavs+ACI-,
> +AD4-etc. for the evidence of this conclusion).
>
> Perhaps, but this one man did not controll what was happening in B-H, and if
> he cared so much for the Serbs' well-being, why did he have to parade
> exactly on Vidovdan, he could have refused.
He believed that the people were so loyal to his country that there weren't
any problems. Indeed, the people of Sarajevo covered their windows with
portraits of the Hapsburgs, flew Austrian flags (even the father of one of the
conspirators did this, much to his son's disgust), etc.
And, indeed, if not for the machinations of elements high in the Serb
government there would not have been any problems.
Babai