History of the Modern Serbs

[DraganOfStip]

It would be a damn shame and dishonor to the victims if Serbia rehabilitates a war criminal like Draza.No matter how Serbs think of him,the fact remains that chetniks (or how they fancied calling themselves "Yugoslav army in the fatherland") committed some of the most horrifying war crimes in history not only to minorities but also against their own people.Just because they were anti-communist doesn't make them heroes.My opinion at least.There's a similar attempt nowadays to rehabilitate Dzemo Hasa,the notorious Bali Combetar commander here in Macedonia as well by some albanian parties.I'm sure no sane person would agree to such a thing.History can't be re-written.There are heroes and villains,and it is clear who is who.

[FriendofMacedonia]

As a Serb, I am against this move to rehabilitate Draza Mihalovic for a variety of reasons.

.There are heroes and villains,and it is clear who is who.

First, I'm going to address this fallacy. There are not always clear bad guys and good guys. The war in Bosnia is prime example (even though the Western media tried to paint it that way). You had three sides, all of whom had innocent blood on their hands, all of whom were fighting for more or less similar goals.

Anyways, back to Draza.

1. As a virulent anti-monarchist, I simply cannot and will not agree with the principles he fought for. The monarchy is in itself an oppressive system of governance that rewards inheritance rather than merit. It centralizes power irrationally and illogically and this to the detriment of the people time and time again. I would like to point out that while the Yugoslav monarchy may have been Serbian, there was little difference in the lives of the average Serbian peasant and that of his Croat/Macedonian etc. counterpart. Both were heavily oppressed by a corrupt monarchy that robbed them at every corner and neglected their importance to the survival of the state.

Its easy to see the above in the ethnic composition of the Chetniks and Partisans throughout the war. While the Chetniks were in fact mostly Serbian (although there were Croatian, Slovenian, and Muslim [around 10% of the Chetniks were Muslim by 1943] brigades and even an army of 8,000 Macedonians in the Chetniks), the Serbs were consistently (even before the Tito-Subasic agreement) the relative majority in Yugoslav Partisans. In other words, a great many Serbs were utterly dissatisfied with the pathetic monarchy and its demeaning ways.

2. The Partisans were FAR more effective in combating the enemy and it is safe to say the they are universally recognized as one of the best resistance armies in WWII and in history and that's something we can all be proud of.

Now, the Chetniks DID offer some decent resistance to the Germans, this cannot be denied and there were many decent men in Chetnik ranks who wanted to fight the occupiers (below are some lists in Serbian of several dozen significant anti-Axis operations undertaken by the Chetniks).

http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0:%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B5_%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%92%D1%83_%D0%88%D0%92%D0%A3%D0%9E_%D0%B8_%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B0

http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2_%D0%88%D0%92%D0%A3%D0%9E_%D1%83_%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%83

However, this doesn't excuse the fact that many Chetnik detatchements collaborated with the enemy (Axis). For this reason alone, Draza shouldn't be rehabilitated. Yes Communism was a threat (although in Yugoslavia's choice it was easily the best option presented during the war) but that DOES NOT excuse collaboration with the enemy.

[Pelister]

Why waste your energy on Serbian history, unless you were trying to make another highly speculative point about 'The Slavs'?

I think Macedonians here deserve better.

Why not start up a thread about oppressive Serbian rule in Macedonia over the centuries? I mean something that is going to restore some dignity, and give something back to the Macedonians rather than convince them they are defacto 'Slavs' :-)

[Soldier of Macedon]

Why waste your energy on Serbian history, unless you were trying to make another highly speculative point about 'The Slavs'?

There is indirect and direct relevance to Macedonia and other regions because all Balkan histories have impacted each other one way or another. Not that you would know this or bother to learn about it, because in your tiny little world everything begins and ends in Macedonia, which has the unfortunate effect of making other Macedonians appear as narrow-minded as you are.

I think Macedonians here deserve better.

You couldn't give a fig about what Macedonians deserve here. Your recent contributions amount to little more than space-wasting diatribes backed by nothing other than your insolent chatter. From what you were to what you've recently become, you're a big disappointment, Pelister. Maybe you will realise why one day.

Why not start up a thread about oppressive Serbian rule in Macedonia over the centuries?

Why don't you? Or perhaps the Macedonians are more deserving of your silence instead of your ignorance.

I mean something that is going to restore some dignity, and give something back to the Macedonians rather than convince them they are defacto 'Slavs' :-)

What is a "defacto Slav"?

[Carlin]

Since this thread is about the history of modern Serbs, here is an interesting link in Croatian/Serbian/Bosnian:

http://vlasi.blogger.ba/

Bosnian and Croatian Serbs have a significant Vlach admixture. The blogger himself claims that they are historically of Vlach origin, which is likely overstated. In Croatian Kraina the historical sources mention only VLACHS.

(Modern Serb and Greek scholars have butchered historical texts and sources beyond recognition.)

[TrueMako]

Serb, Croat and Bulgar are all non-Slavic names that have a likely Iranic origin, and for the latter possibly even Turkic.

Albania and Montenegro are both Latin names yet neither one or the other is Latin.

Even the words Greece and Athens have no recognised 'Hellenic' etymology.

Yet most of the above are too busy trying to negate Macedonian history, when they can't even explain the official and international names of their states in their own languages.

That the 'Serb' name was used as a synonym for a Slavic peasant is beyond doubt, the user Bosnian once cited texts where the Serb and Bulgar names are mentioned as far as Dalmatia. The name for the language however, is somewhat different. I am having a hard time finding anything that refers to a 'Serbian language' prior to the 19th century.

Serb and Croat are not non-slavic, you're mistaken. They come from slavic words Srp (Sickle or Crescent) and Hrvanje (Tussle, fighter).

Greece is an exonym, and Hellada ethnonym.

[Risto the Great]

Nice opinions.
You know what they say about opinions.
Hellada comes from Hell I would opine.

[George S.]

The hellenic bit has raised it's head after 1988. (after the findings of andronikos re phillip ii & the star of vergina)When was greece called hellenic?.After the name helen to describe the greeks that went to get her.Since when is something hellenic after all these years.They have used it recently calling all things hellenic this, hellenic that..They may as well rename their country from greece.
The truth is that the greeks are never happy with their name greece & are allways changing.They would hapilly change it to macedonia if they had a chance.Probably in phase would be hellas or hellarse.The greeks can't work out who they are.Supposedly to confuse people deliberately so as to say it's all greek to them the hellarses.

[TrueMacedonian]

Serb and Croat are not non-slavic, you're mistaken. They come from slavic words Srp (Sickle or Crescent) and Hrvanje (Tussle, fighter).

Greece is an exonym, and Hellada ethnonym.

I guess you're from hellass. So you would know what is slavic and what is non-slavic.




BTW you may be a True Mako shark but you can never be a True Macedonian!

[julie]

The hellenic bit has raised it's head after 1988. (after the findings of andronikos re phillip ii & the star of vergina)When was greece called hellenic?.After the name helen to describe the greeks that went to get her.Since when is something hellenic after all these years.They have used it recently calling all things hellenic this, hellenic that..They may as well rename their country from greece.
The truth is that the greeks are never happy with their name greece & are allways changing.They would hapilly change it to macedonia if they had a chance.Probably in phase would be hellas or hellarse.The greeks can't work out who they are.Supposedly to confuse people deliberately so as to say it's all greek to them the hellarses.

The ancient Romans called every one that was not Roman a "hellene" or barbarian

Greece, the hellenes, self proclaimed barbarians

[TrueMako]

Hellen comes from "Helios" for the sun, or so people theorize I guess.

All I'm saying here is that all that rubbish your read on the interwebs about Serbs and Croats being Iranians is pure bollocks!

[Carlin]

I guess you're from hellass. So you would know what is slavic and what is non-slavic.




BTW you may be a True Mako shark but you can never be a True Macedonian!

Great find.

Occam's razor... When there so many 'competing' theories as to the origins of various tribes on the territory of modern Greece (i.e. Maniotes and others), one can safely dismiss the most outlandish claim and proposition: that Maniotes are of ancient Spartan descent.

[Carlin]

Hellen comes from "Helios" for the sun, or so people theorize I guess.

All I'm saying here is that all that rubbish your read on the interwebs about Serbs and Croats being Iranians is pure bollocks!

I'm afraid you are mistaken.

I took a Slavic history course in university (at one of the most prominent universities in Canada, with a great Slavic department as well): when we arrived at the section and chapter dealing with the Serbs, the professor plainly and openly stated that original Serbs were of Iranian or Sarmatian origin.


For what it's worth here's a Wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Serbs

The Iranian theory

Theory about Iranian origin of the Serb ethnonym assumes that ancient Serbi / Serboi from north Caucasus (Asiatic Sarmatia) were an Sarmatian (Alanian) tribe.[25] The theory subsequently assumes that Alanian Serbi were subdued by the Huns in the 4th century and that they, as part of the Hunnic army, migrated to the western edge of the Hunnic Empire (in the area of Central Europe near the river Elbe, later designated as White Serbia in what is now Saxony (eastern Germany) and western Poland). After Hunnic leader Attila died (in 453), Alanian Serbi presumably became independent and ruled in the east of the river Saale (in modern day Germany) over local Slavic population.[26][27] Over time, they, it is argued, intermarried with the local Slavic population of the region,[28][29] adopted Slavic language, and transferred their name to the Slavs.[30] According to Tadeuš Sulimirski, similar event could occur in the Balkans or Serbs who settled in the Balkans were Slavs who came from the north and who were ruled by already slavicized Alans.[31]

Hypothetical Serb migration from Sarmatia

Deformed human sculls that are connected to the Alans are also discovered in the area that was later designated as "White Serbia".[32] According to Iranian interpretation, different sides of the World are designated with different colors, thus, white color is designation for the west, black color for the north, blue or green color for the east and red color for the south. According to that view, White Serbia and White Croatia were designated as western Serbia and western Croatia, and were situated in the west from some hypothetical lands that had same names and that presumably existed in the east.[33]

It is possible that the Alanian Serbi in Sarmatia, similarly like other Sarmatian/Iranian peoples on the northern Caucasus, originally spoke an Indo-European Iranian language similar to present-day Ossetian. The Ossetian language is a member of Eastern Iranian branch of Iranian languages, along with Pashtun, Yaghnobi and languages of the Pamir. One of the Pashtun tribal groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan is known as Sarbans (Sarbani) and Pashtuns are believed to be of Scythian descent[34] while their language is classified as East Scythian[35] (Sarmatian language is also grouped within Scythian branch).

In Polish history, the Polish nobility claimed to be direct descendants of the historic Sarmatian people (see: Sarmatism) and this might be connected with historical White Serbia and White Croatia, which included parts of present-day Poland.

PS:
The Caucasian theory - According to some interpretations, Serb ethnonym might be of Caucasian or more notably of Lezgian origin. In the Lezgian language, "ser" would mean "man", while "serbi" would mean "men" or "people".[36]

[Soldier of Macedon]

Serb and Croat are not non-slavic, you're mistaken. They come from slavic words Srp (Sickle or Crescent) and Hrvanje (Tussle, fighter).

When 'srb' is written with a devoiced 'p' instead of 'b' (as in srpsko), it is known in linguistics as assimilation. The term 'srp' (sickle) has nothing to do with the ethnonym 'srb' (serb).

[Carlin]