A Christmas blasphemy

[Conza]

@I. Ryan

It, indeed, was your point.

Yep and all this discussion does it continue to back up my earlier point. That which you agreed to.

I. Ryan:
This discussion is basically worthless.

Rothbard wasn’t omniscient. Great, anything else you would like to add?

[I_Ryan]

@Conza88

Rothbard wasn’t omniscient. Great, anything else you would like to add?

I am not Marko, dammit!

@Conza88

Yep and all this discussion does it continue to back up my earlier point. That which you agreed to.

Indeed.

[Esuric]

@Marko

Another Balkanism. The Balkans are no more and no less an area of „intense and ancient ethnic hatreds“ than any other place in the world. No phenomena you can find in the Balkans is particularly unique to it.

This is pure fantasy.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eXo6CEG6NM,
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D3ZGN9YEjc&feature=related

I mean, anyone who know anything about this region, or has ever visited this region, knows that this statement is pure nonsense.

@Marko

A far more important grounding is that the fact was that while Serbs were made into a small minority by the phenomenal natural growth rate of the Albanian population they in fact still own most of the land in Kosovo.

No, the Serbs lost control of Kosovo to the Ottoms in the early 15th century, in two decisive battles. This forever altered the makeup of the region.

@Marko

That would have been rather difficult seeing how Yugoslavism originated with Croats and spread from Austro-Hungary. Yugoslavism both in its unitarist and in its federalist strands were the brainchilds of Croats. The former by one Ljudevit Gaj the central personality of Croatian national awekening and the latter by one Josip Juraj Strossmayer the central personality of Croatian liberalism. Also while Yugoslavism was widely accepted among the South Slavs in Austria-Hungary where all political currents of all the three peoples paid homage to it to one degree or another, except for a conservative current of the Croats, it held far less sway in Serbia. Stjepan Radić himself was a Yugoslavist but of the federalist strand (The first Yugoslavia was unitarist.). Nor was there anything particularly “phony” or artificial about the pan-South Slavist ideology, it was legitimate as any other ideology of this type.

Again, pure nonsense. Croatia did voluntarily join the Yugoslavian union, something they would regret immediately.

• The Croats were not proportionally represented in the government and diplomatic corps. The old currencies - Serbian dinars and Croatian (Austrian) crowns, which in 1918 had the same value, were in 1919 changed for the new dinar in the following ratio: 1 dinar = 4 crowns
• Taxes were lower in Serbia
• The major part of foreign loans was spent in Serbia,
• high administrative posts were filled exclusively with the Serbs (civil servants in Croatia were appointed by the central administration in Belgrade).This was true for Montenegro until fairly recently.
• Stjepan Radic (1871-1928), the leader of the Croatian Peasant Party, was indeed assassinated in the Yugoslav parliament in Belgrade in 1928 together with his colleagues. The assassination was organized at the Royal court in Belgrade.
• The culmination of the Serbian police terror took place during the personal dictatorship of king Aleksandar Karadzordevic in 1929. One of the historical documents from that period, showing `methods’ of the Serbian police and administration, is a bill on 13 dinars and 15 paras charged to a Croatian family in 1934 for five bullets fired at the father, who was sentenced to death

Most of your comments are either (a) absurd, (b) irrelevant, or (c) partially correct/opinion. Again, this post is one giant waste of time. Croatians and Serbs got along up until 1914–everyone knows this.

[Marko]

Esuric, do you think Rothbard had a grasp of the history and the realities he was talking about, or did he in these articles clearly indicate a great amount of ignorance?

[Marko]

@Esuric

@Marko

Another Balkanism. The Balkans are no more and no less an area of „intense and ancient ethnic hatreds“ than any other place in the world. No phenomena you can find in the Balkans is particularly unique to it.

This is pure fantasy.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eXo6CEG6NM,
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D3ZGN9YEjc&feature=related

Your first link is broken. The second takes place not in the Balkans but in Australia. Furthermore it is not very ancient is it? In any case, this sort of thing is nothing unusual anywhere in the world. Must I show you the footage of the Kristalnacht or of the LA Riots? Of the disturbances in Fiji or in South Africa? The pogroms in Baku? Something from Northern Ireland?

@Esuric

I mean, anyone who know anything about this region, or has ever visited this region, knows that this statement is pure nonsense.

“Everybody knows” is not much of an argument. Especcially when I am making the claim that it is the image that originated outside of the region where it is widely accepted but much less so within it. We can see this even now. You are talking from the US, I am posting from the region itself.

@Esuric

No, the Serbs lost control of Kosovo to the Ottoms in the early 15th century, in two decisive battles. This forever altered the makeup of the region.

Read more carefully. I am not talking about the “makeup of the region”. I am talking about property. In a similar example the Russians make up 40% of Latvia`s population, but own nowhere near 40% of the land.

@Esuric

• The Croats were not proportionally represented in the government and diplomatic corps. The old currencies - Serbian dinars and Croatian (Austrian) crowns, which in 1918 had the same value, were in 1919 changed for the new dinar in the following ratio: 1 dinar = 4 crowns
• Taxes were lower in Serbia
• The major part of foreign loans was spent in Serbia,
• high administrative posts were filled exclusively with the Serbs (civil servants in Croatia were appointed by the central administration in Belgrade).This was true for Montenegro until fairly recently.
• The culmination of the Serbian police terror took place during the personal dictatorship of king Aleksandar Karadzordevic in 1929. One of the historical documents from that period, showing `methods’ of the Serbian police and administration, is a bill on 13 dinars and 15 paras charged to a Croatian family in 1934 for five bullets fired at the father, who was sentenced to death

The point being? Yes all of this is true. Croatia had a very rotten semi-colonial position in the first Yugoslavia. So? Did I anywhere deny this in any way? I had pointed out that Rothbard is wrong to claim that the Croats and Slovenes were fooled in adopting Yugoslavism by Serbia. He seems to think Croats are such simpletons that their intellectual leaders can be fooled into adopting an ideology by a foreign country. Serbia had nothing to do with the creation and with the proliferation of Yugoslavism among Croats. Croats adopted Yugoslavism from other Croats. Yugoslavism was not an ad hoc invention of Serbia on November 1918. It was a decades old ideology already widely accepted among intellectuals, Croats and Slovene, much before the actual creation of Yugoslavia.

@Esuric

Croatians and Serbs got along up until 1914–everyone knows this.

Everyone but Rothbard.

[scineram]

@Marko

Your first link is broken.

You just cannot copy paste.

@Marko

The second takes place not in the Balkans but in Australia.

Between Serbs and Croats. They cannot coexist in Australia, let alone the Balkans.

[Marko]

Can not or do not?

[Stephen_Forde]

Ok, I’m gonna go through this a bit. I admit I don’t know alot of history, but many of your criticisms fail or don’t prove much.

@Marko

it’s just that the Serbs have been better fighters in this civil war

Wrong. The Serbs were no “better fighters”, but they had inherited the military hardware of the federal army by the virtue of everyone else abandoning that army.

If they have the military hardware, they are better fighters by virtue of that fact. Right?

@Marko

Serbia, a nation on Austria-Hungary’s southern border, which had set off World War I by contriving to assassinate Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914

Serbia did no such thing, and actually no a war can not be made inevitable by an assassination, so it must be said it was Austria-Hungary who set off the war by actually launching it.

This was, nevertheless, the event which led to the First World War.

@Marko

When the Serbs assassinated the great Croat peasant leader Stefan Radic in 1928,

Stjepan Radić was not assassinated. He was murdered in the assembly by a fellow assembly member who after giving a speech was heckled by members of Radić`s party and loosing composure produced a revolver, shouting for an apology and when one was not forthcoming moved on a shooting spree killing three and wounding one other. The shooting spree was not planned in advance (he always had a revolver on him, not just that day) and the shooter acted alone. Therefore no, “the Serbs” did not assassinate Radić, there was no Serb conspiracy to assassinate Radić, it was an act of one person.

So it might be might be more correct to say he was assasinated by ‘a’ Serb. Big deal.

@Marko

For the Bosnian Muslims were once the hated Bogomil heretics, a Manichaean heresy with horrifying implications, and there is much evidence that the Muslims still practice their Bogomil rites in secret, engraving its symbols on their tombstones.

This is up there with the aliens built the pyramids sort of stuff. This is totally proposterous. People who until 1993 went around calling themselves „Moslem by nationality“ are actually secretly practitioners of some middle age heresy nobody actually knows anymore for certain what was it about? (There is no consensus to the effect that the heresy was Manichean.) You don`t think that would have gotten out by now? This is simply looney world…

There is a historical basis for this assertion. Whether or not he’s correct, it seems plausible.

[Esuric]

Try the link again:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eXo6CEG6NM