I often think if things would be different today if Serbia decided not to form a south – slav state during WWI. Namely, we had a chance to make a greater Serbia, yet our politicians decided to participate in south – slavic experiment (in spite of the war crimes Croats and Slovenians commited during WWI as a part of Austro – Hungarian troops). Even before WWI Croatia showed strong hatred toward Serbs – in 1902. there were anti – Serb demonstrations (funny – the leader was half – Serbian himself). I guess the Croats and Slovenians decided to participate our joint state in order to save their teritories. As a sign of good will we Serbs decided to forget all about their war crimes – all those war criminals pretty much got away with it.

Nikola Pasic, our primeminister opposed the idea of unification, but he was forced to accept it because of the preassure by our king and most politicians.

What is your oppinion about this subject? If Serbia refused to participate in south – slav state what would happen with today’s ex – Yugoslavian states? Would they be a part of Hungary, Italy, Austria and Serbia? 

Serbia was the core state as well as the brain of Yugoslavia.  That kingdom was inconceivable without Serbia, and that is a major reason the kingdom stayed together in the 1920s and 30s.

Had Serbia not been involved, the Bosnian, Croatian and Slovenian lands would have come under outside influence (Hungary; Italy).  Montenegro probably would have joined with Serbia anyway, but Italy may have tried to block a Serb outlet to the Adriatic.

Ok, we can get along (better then killing each other).

"we speak the same language, were all the same people": You shouldn't say that to Croatians: officially they are 75% Iranians - rest of us are "lower race" .

"Our bigger enemies are western europe and america, we should focus on competeing together against them instead of each other.": I agree with that. In some way West (especially America) pushed us all in to a civil war. All they care is profit. They don't care about all those terminaly ill people in Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia... caused by their uranium bombs.

I couldn't agree more.

I'm suprised that someone outside of Serbia understands this situation .   

I have to correct you - without Serbia there wouldn't be Yugoslavia. That's because Serbia was one of the allies that won WWI, and on Serbia's initiative Yugoslavia was created*. Croatians and Slovenians were part of AH and they had no rights to ask for anything. Most probably they would became part of Austria, Hungary and Italy. In fact the reason why they entered Yugoslavia is to avoid their teritories being taken away. 

*American president Woodroe Wilson influenced greatly on creating Yugoslavia, due to his close friendship with Michael (Mihajlo) Pupin - a world known Serbian scientist living in America.

I think it's very doubtful whether they wanted to participate or not - very few of them wanted to fight for it when asked by our guerilla fighters (Chetniks). I said:

Even before WWI Croatia showed strong hatred toward Serbs – in 1902. there were anti – Serb demonstrations (funny – the leader was half – Serbian himself).

So you can see how they felt about us... even before there was any conflicts.

A mis-spent university major. 

Rather well - spent, i think...at least someone knows something outside of Princip killing F.Ferdinand...

Originally posted by Mila Why would Croatians, if there was significant social prejudice against Serbs, listen to Serbian ideas in 1918 anyways? EDIT: And I have to say, I love how you quoted yourself to demonstrate your point. You'll make a fine Bosnian politician one day.

Because they had absolutely no other way out!It was either Serbs or bye, bye Croatia...There wasn't excatly a freedom of choice...

No thank you - don't want nothing to do with politics...

Beowulf:

I really don't think you can blame the Yugoslav civil wars on the West.  That is more than a stretch.

They certainly added some oil to the fire...I'm not saying it's the West to blame exclusively... Anyway, they had some interests - at least. 

Originally posted by Mila But, maybe they would've become an Iranian satellite?

 I'm sure that the Croatians would be delighted. 

An interesting idea, but I don't see it as possible in the nationalist atmosphere pre- and post-WWI.

A state like that would also have concerned Turkey and Romania and Greece, and there would have been all kinds of other alliances, treaties, etc.  More stuff to cause more problems.

I think the reason it did not happen was because it was rejected by the Soviets, as the Yugoslav regime was becoming increasingly prowestern.

In any case I am glad Bulgaria did not enter. I would have hated to see some of the ethnic strife be exported here in Bulgaria as well.

It's amazing how Clinton could say such a thing! There isn't a single objective source that says Serbs were to blame for the ww1. As for ww2-everybody knows it started in 1939!!! It didn't start in Serbia until 1941!!! I mean - i'm surprised nobody reacted on Clinton's claims!!! It was one the most idiotic statements of the century! Come to think he was educated at Oxford....

And Madelaine Albright was saved in WWII by the Serbs - the entire village rhisked their lives to hide a little girl and her relatives from the Nazis. Today they have got a nice little reminder - an unexploded NATO missile...

Beowulf:

Bill Clinton went to Georgetown University, and to Yale Law.  If his administration is any indicator, he spent most of his college life chasing skirts.

The Rhodes scholar thing at Oxford is a Curriculum Vitae filler.  It looks good on a resume.  He obviously didn't learn anything about the Balkans.

I heard him on voice of America...in the pause between two airstrikes.I couldn't believe my ears.... Come to think he's a ''democrat'', and people say a democrat is better then a republican.Like that Kerry guy would do anything different then Bush....they all have to act according to interests of the big bucks...i doubt that they decide anything for themselves.

hmm, i always wondered why bulgaria wasnt part of yugoslavia. Macedonia was....bulgaria is just as much slavik as macedonia is. I think slovenia, croatia, bosnia and hercegovina, serbia and montenegro, macedonia AND bulgaria should form Yugslavia again. We'd be much stronger together, individually everbodys smaller and more insignificant. I think it will happen one day. Western Europe might actually make it happen to stabilize the economy in the balkans so all of us can join and contribute something to the european union. I think european union is trying to form one economy to kick americas ass.

The Croats are not very happy about this proposal. They think that this would pull them back. And I think that Slovenia will never agree with that, because they are not strictly on Balkan, they are more Central European country.

I don't know for sure, but some people are in favour for Yugoslavia, but I think that the majority is not for it. I don't support the idea of Yugoslavia, because I think that after all these wars and suffering it can not happen again.

I don't think that most Serbians hate Bosnian, but that's my oppinion.

Concerning the massacre - you should ask those who did it. But I'm asking you: Do you really think that only Serbs are responsible for war crimes? Do you think that Mulims and Croats haven't commited any war crimes?

Btw., who provoced the Handzar Division to masacre the Serbs during WWII? What did Serbs do to them?  

No that isn't true. They operated in north and east Bosnia.

Yes, I'm aware that Bosniaks were massacred during WWII, too. I never said that that's not true. However, Serbs were killed in far greater numbers.

Those who claim it to be true have failed to present any reliable evidence. Nobody can denie what happened in Bosnia. All the evidence is clear enough.

I definitely agree.Serbia was the center and the core of the Yugoslavia formed after 1918...

Leaving the fact that Serbia wouldn't be allowed and wouldn't have the capability to make "A Greater Serbia" alone aside, probably that kind of a federation was the best way at that time. Otherwise, I believe, at least Croatia and Slovenia would be devoted too much on Italy and would be somewhat like a puppet, and we could even have seen Dalmatian coast in Italian control today.

I'm perfectly aware of what chetniks did-btw they killed many serbs(commies) as well.

I understand more serbians were killed in WWII, but thats logical because they were the most numerous too.

It has nothing to do with our numbers:we were victims of a well-organised  genocide.And for your information the number of serbs killed (350.000 at least !)in WWII when compared to no. of serbs in general isn't even remotely proportional to no. of bosniaks and croats killed comp. to their no. in general...Besides, it's the cruelty of those crimes that shocks even more then numbers (it shocked even the nazis).I wrote this before, and I will again if necessary:

"The crimes of the fascist Ustashe against the Serbs in the notorious camp of Jasenovac must be known - crimes that are the worst ones along with those committed against the Jews in the Holocaust."

                             Simon Wiesenthal

So, you can't just rationalise these crimes by saying the serbs were killed in proportion to their numbers... 

If u r speaking of WWII-u have the wrong numbers-official no. of serbs is 164.000, bosniaks 75.000 and croats 64.000.

And its Pavelic, not Pavlevic.As I have written before, even tha nazis were shocked (do i need to say more) and the italian fascists had to intervene occasionally because of ustasha brutality.

Can you ever just say Serbs had gone through war, and had to go through terrible things, and just leave it at that? Or do you have to put that more Bosniaks were killed than Serbs... and then compare the war in the 90's to this. Everyone already knows what Bosniaks had gone through, little if any in the west can even recall places like Jasenovac. Its not even listed on American version, of Consentration Camps in Europe.

Nicely said. And yes-most westerners don't even know of Jasenovac.Not to speak of their jumping to hasty conclusions without regarding the facts.Yet, there is plenty of evidence for what is done in jasenovac-some of them being ustasha's diaries-reading just one page will give u nightmares for weeks.

Mila,

I personally have mentioned countless times, terrible crimes commited against Muslims in Bosnia, and not even mentioning serbs, maybe not in this forum, but in general I have. So I don't think that question should go out to me, at all. I have never said anything against Bosniaks, and have infact defended them several times.

It just seems like you are forcing this apon us. We understand you are Bosniak - that doesn't mean you have to shove it down our throughts, and go on to say Bosniaks were the first slavs in Bosnia, Serbs and Croats from Bosnia are really Bosniak etc. etc. Maybe that isn't your intention but that is the sence I am getting from some of your posts.

Originally posted by Mila We'd never have gotten as rich as we did either. I'd be afraid to touch the walls of buildings in eastern Bulgaria.

I don't get it. Please explain.