▲ 23 points
back
27 comments
I'm honestly amazed that this is a "novel" look. Most of Croatian coast has Italian as first or second language, or a local language heavily influenced by it. The Ottomans didn't really have much to do with the Adriatic and the Austro-Hungarians came quite late. Who did historians think Croatian coast was mostly influenced by up until now?
> Italian as first or second language, or a local language heavily influenced by it
To be pedantic:
It used to be first language in many areas, but since at least WW2 it is exclusively a second language.
It wasn't Italian as much as Venetian, which is quite a distinct Italian dialect. During most of the history Italy didn't even exist, and the eastern Adriatic coast was exclusively influenced by the Republic of Venice. Most people don't realise how new Italy is as a single nation.
Using your logic ("During most of the history Italy didn't even exist"), the same can be said about Croatia.
The two times Croatia for sure has existed in history was (1) from 1941 to 1945 [0] - as a Nazi-supported and -supporting country, committing crimes against Christian-Orthodox Serbs, Jews and Romani people with support of the Roman-Catholic Church and Nazi-Germany/Austria [1] and (2) from 1991 into the present - when that state (with the help of Germany, Austria and RCC) was re-awakened to finish the job of pushing Christian-Orthodoxy and the Serbs away from the Adriatic sea and toward East [2].
Every other claim that Croatia has existed prior to 1941 is just a fantasy. The "List of rulers of Croatia" is such an example [3]. The heading "Under the Habsburgs (1527–1918)" is in the category ROTFL. They are ALL Germans but your people seriously write they were "Croatian rulers"!
Next heading ("Kings of Yugoslavia (1918–1941)") is even more hilarious: There, Croatian editors list three rulers, ALL of which were Christian-Orthodox Serbs! That LITTLE fact is not mentioned in the article. One of them was "Assassinated by the VMRO with Ustaše support in 1934." Ustaše are Croatian terrorist organisation that has later led the first Croatian state from 1941 until 1945. But, hey, he is a "Croatian ruler"!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_State_of_Croatia
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloysius_Stepinac
Duchy of Croatia [1] and then Kingdom of Croatia [2]. Every sane Croatian agrees that NDH was a disgraceful puppet state but what you are saying about modern Croatia is some crazy extremist speak which doesn't belong here.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Croatia
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Croatia_(925%E2%8...
Thank you for these two links. And for, in a sense, confirming me: maps shown in those entries of "duchy/kingdom of Croatia" depict a territory of most of Dalmatia, parts of western Herzegovina and Bosnia. That is it!
Istria, Slavonia, today's capital Zagreb (Agram on the map) and everything north of it is not part of that duchy/kingdom. According to the entries you have posted. Do you suggest that these regions they are actually not croatian?
Things change as time goes by. People move, territories get occupied, families change religion, people adopt other religions, countries expand and shrink. Ottomans occupied Bosnia for 300 years and now there is a muslim majority. My family used to be Orthodox and now my side is Catholic. Christianism didn't exist 3000 years ago. Are you saying these regions (Croatia/Serbia/BiH) are actually some paganic/slavic/pre-slavic whatever this is? None of the "big religions" existed 10 000 years ago yet humans existed for 200 000 years or whatever. What were they 100 000 years ago? Isn't this argument a bit meaningless?
As much as I share your view (some things partly, some in full), if you - for whatever reason - don't want, I don't need to go back in the history to get my point across.
I will look at the present. If you are honest and if you look at what both leaders (politicians, intellectuals) and ordinary people in today's Croatia, Muslim/Croatian part of Bosnia and Herzegovina and in occupied part of Serbia ("Kosovo") say AND do regarding Serbs, you must realize that they still display stark animosity against anything Serb-related. Almost 30 years/over 20 years after last wars there have ended!
This year (2022), as one example out of many that I could name, in Dubrovnik (Croatia) high school graduates have celebrated high school end and were walking through the center of the city while chanting "Za dom spremni" (Croatian-Nazi greet from WWII, equivalent to German-Nazi "Sieg Heil"), while singing Croatian-Nazi songs about killing Serbs, while wearing Croatian-Nazi flag and while being greeted with Nazi salutes by other young people who have filmed this spectacle of true emotions [0]. These young people will be MD's, lawyers, engineers, policemen, soldiers - future of Croatia - tomorrow and they don't mind putting their hatred towards Serbs into the public on the bright sunny day.
They have probably never met a Serb in their short lives, because in today's Croatia - due to huge social pressure - you must hide your identity if you're a Serb. Which is why many Serbs cave in, change their religion (from Christian Orthodoxy to Roman-Catholicism) and then become Croats. And many/most of them then hate Serbs at least just as much, because it is not enough to just change your religion/identity/name - you must prove yourself in the new identity. (I am aware that social pressure varies between regions in Croatia: Dalmatia probably being the worst, Istria probably being the least bad - on average)
At the same time, Serbia and Serb-part/entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina ("Republika Srpska") are still in good part multi-religious and -ethnic and they help others by letting them get jabbed for free during pandemics (with many Croats, Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians being vaccinated in Serbia), by giving Sarajevo natural gas to stay warm during the past winter or by sending helicopters to put out fires that have recently raged in Muslim/Croatian part of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (to name a few)
To summarize: Serbs want to a life in peace, to prosper and to procreate, and neither our leaders nor ordinary people (almost exclusively) show animosity towards all of you while everything that we hear and see in Croatia, Muslim/Croatian-part of Bosnia and Herzegovina and "Kosovo" is show of hatred and threat to us. It teaches us that most of you live in the past, waiting to repeat crimes against us that you have commuted in the past 100 and some years.
(I could write for days, read my other comments in this thread, read Wikipedia articles I have linked for more context.)
[0] https://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/maturanti-na-stradunu-ur...
Dude, chill. I've been lurking HN for 15 years, and you made me create an account just to respond to this. Comments like these are the reason why everyone thinks we are a bunch of crazy ultra-nationalists. OP said nothing about Croatian state, or rulers, or church or anything. Do you just cruse the internet and start spewing random Ustase fact every time the word Croatia pops up? Even if there was anything objectionable in what was said there are way less unhinged ways to respond. We are all victims of selective and glorified history taught in our schools (plus a steady diet of hatred-filled media) and through normal dialog we can all learn more about each other's perspectives.
Welcome to HN as a commentator!
Where is "ultra-nationalism" in my two comments here? Or which "random facts'"? I quote English Wikipedia and these entries were edited by Croats. That one link with the list of "croatian" rulers is identical to the same entry in croatian Wikipedia.
OP was "pedantic" and has claimed something that was plain wrong. And using his logic, I was pedantic as well - to set the record straight and provide background info. The alternative is to let Croats claim whatever you want while betting on ignorance and lack of knowledge of others.
This is one of the most nasty little posts I've seen on HN for years. Please take your ethnic cleaning Serbian dogma to 4chan where it belongs.
> nasty little posts
When Wikipedia entries, written in part or completely by Croats, are quoted that is "nasty". <sigh>
> your ethnic cleaning Serbian dogma
I and most other Serbs condemn all atrocities and crimes committed by Serbs or in Serbian name. Explain one thing to me: How come that in Serb-dominated countries/entities (Serbia and Serb-entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) there are still Muslims/Boschniaks, Croats, Albanians, Hungarians... while in today's Croatia, Muslim/Croatian part of Bosnia and Herzegovina and occupied part of Serbia ("Kosovo") there are almost no Serbs? In Sarajevo alone, prior to the war (1991 census), over 150.000 Serbs have lived. According to the last (2013) census there were less than 9.000. But, yeah, "ethnic cleaning". <sigh>
Croatians are quite proud of the history of stopping the ottoman invasion.
See for example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinjska_alka
Today's croatian borders reflect thr defense line against ottoman invasion. Infact, the part of Croatia that fell to the ottomans is now known as Herzegovina, which now forms the Bosnia and Herzegovina country.
> "Croatians are quite proud of the history of stopping the ottoman invasion."
How come that (under the heading "Demographics") Wikipedia lists [0] the "Eastern Orthodox" were still majority in 1828? Were they Croats? Or - MAYBE, just MAYBE - Serbs? And is it possible that those Christian Orthodox Serbs were converting to Roman-Catholicism (under Austrian pressure)? Look at the numbers in that article, the number of Orthodox falls by 1.78% and the number of Catholics rises by 1.5%.
Hercegovina was never part of Croatia, as it was always Bosnia and Hercegovina. Please find a different outlet for your nationalistic lies.
I never thought I'd read this kind of comment on HN, I don't know how you're not ashamed of yourself and involving politics in this kind of discussion.
Awful. There are other forums you can use for this kind of communication.
"the part of Croatia that fell to the ottomans is now known as Herzegovina, which now forms the Bosnia and Herzegovina country."
That is definitely not technical discussion nor is it true, and this is what I responded to.
FFS. Yeah nationalists will bend history so they can tell how things would be right now, and I loathe that as well. But that doesn't mean that the opposite of what nationalists say must be true by definition. Parts of Herzegovina were indeed populated by ethnic Croatians and part of it was even under the kingdom of Croatia (not that being under a rule of a give king has anything to do with the ethnicity of people who live there)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia_in_personal_union_wi...
EDIT: typos
The comment about “open air museum” really resonates. Increasing numbers of European cities with well preserved districts are so overrun and catered to tourists that any sense of a living city is gone
Only the big cities (eg Paris or London) preserve a sense of a city both maintaining a connection with their past but also still lived in
Not sure that's true. I was born and brought up in York, which is heavy on tourism (important from Roman Britain to the late mediaeval, with buildings and archaeology to match). But it's also an ordinary, livable, small city. It's a railway centre, makes chocolate, and has two universities. Definitely still 'lived in'.
Of course, if you spend time around York Minster (the cathedral), or Stonegate, or the Yorvik Viking Centre, you're going to be surrounded by tourists. And the place is more expensive than it would be without the history.
True, the problem can be confined to many overtouristed districts, not the entire city, but small places seem to suffer much more