|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 10, 2009 2:54:21 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jul 10, 2009 14:01:27 GMT 3
Yes, he was a Bosnian Serb who was a member of a Serbian organization which wanted to unite all the Serbs living in Serbia and Bosnia to form a "Greater Serbia". The same ideology that caused the Yugoslavian Civil War.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 11, 2009 6:52:46 GMT 3
Honestly, I remember him as being a Serb, but a quick look up of him on Wikipedia said he was a member of "Young Bosnia". It didn't look like a "Greater Serbia" organization, but a "Yugoslav" organization.
I remember meeting some Yugoslav immigrants back in college. I asked them what their ethnicity was because of my own Slovenian ancestry and they only wanted to be known as Yugoslavs.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jul 11, 2009 11:28:51 GMT 3
Hmm yes I checked it as well, they were more like Pan-Southern-Slavists. They were also supported by Serbia, as we all know.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jul 16, 2009 17:55:59 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 16, 2009 19:21:57 GMT 3
I'll add some of my old posts to continue the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 16, 2009 19:22:28 GMT 3
i don't want to sidetrack this thread but the Austro-Hungarian Empire is probably the least multi-ethnic empire that i would describe as failure. firt of, Austria-Hungary did not implode, it was dismembered by the Entente after ww1. Yeah, but the war itself was a disaster for the Empire. When millions of the Slavic soldiers were deserting through the enemy lines because they didn't want to fight for their Austo-Hungarian officers. also many Galicians (western Ukrainians) considder their time in the Austro-Hungarian Empire as their 'Golden Age' in the 20th century and were called the 'Tyroleans of the East' back then (Tyroleans were particularly known for their devoted loyalty to the Habsburg crown). Yes. But it's mostly because of the Ukrainian animosity towards Poles and Hungarians. Austrian crown very skillfully was using these conflicts for its own benefits and usually used Ukrainians to crush Polish and Hungarian rebellions. In fact, it were Austrians who actually helped to grow Ukrainian nationalism and even the Ukrainian national flag is believed to be designed by the Austian Empress. She send it to the Ukrainian regiment that helped to crush the last Hungarian uprising in the 1840th. However, when some Ukrainian nationalists showed some pro-Russian sympathies, the Austian authorities immidiately employed their Hungarian and Polish levereges to suppress Ukrainians in Galitsia. i'm quite sure that if Austria-Hungary was not dissolved forcefully, only Czechoslovakia would have seceeded after ww1, [/quote] And also, Polish territories, Transilvania (with Romanian majority), Croatia, Italian territories and Bosnia, of course. Although the Austrian Empire of the late 19th century was quite a tolerant empire, all the ethnical minorities with little exceptions would prefer to have their own states. Though, still I believe Austro-Hungary was quite an interesting state and definitely one of the reasons of WWII is its unfortunate dissolution.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 16, 2009 19:23:42 GMT 3
look at what the Entente did create, mutants called Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, talking about multi-ethnic empires that collapsed on their own here... i think you really should deplore more on historical facts rather than interwar Entente propaganda... Hmmm... actually "Yugoslavian identity" was complitely in accordance with previous Austrian attempts to create a coherent "Bosnian identity" despite all the differnces of the local people. It was rather an experiment based on Austrian example. About Czechoslovakia, yeah minorities felt disadvantaged there but so was with Austro-Hungary as well with only 2 title ethnicities and only two official languages. 'millions' is an exaggeration but it is obvious that desertion was by far biggest in the Czech(oslovak) Regiments, not so the other slavic regiments. hence my remark that only Czechoslovakia would gain independence after ww1. this is particularly ironic because if you look at the ethnic composition of the Austrian regiments in the Napoleonic Wars, you'll find that the Czech infantryman was the mainstay of the Austrian Army, and they were already traditionally strong represented in the Artillery branch. Well. I can say that the Russian army took millions of POWs most of whom were Czechs and Slovaks just because they formed one of the most numerous contingent of the army, but also many Ukrainians (so many of them that after the Brest-Litovsk treaty they formed the core of a new independent Ukraine's army), Romanians, Italians, Serbs and Croatians. Most of those voluntary deserted and surrendered to the Russian army. By contrast, Austrian, Hungarian and Polish soldiers didn't desert voluntary, but they were in minority on the Eastern Front.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 16, 2009 21:42:38 GMT 3
Temujin,
Thanks for the book.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 16, 2009 21:50:33 GMT 3
Political persecution in Hungary by Scotus Viator (Robert William Seton-Watson) at Google Books. Note that this is also available as a PDF for download. Racial problems in Hungary also by Scotus Viator Searching for "Magyarization" on Google Books also comes up with more recent books on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 16, 2009 22:03:13 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jul 16, 2009 22:12:46 GMT 3
Hmmm... actually "Yugoslavian identity" was complitely in accordance with previous Austrian attempts to create a coherent "Bosnian identity" despite all the differnces of the local people. It was rather an experiment based on Austrian example. About Czechoslovakia, yeah minorities felt disadvantaged there but so was with Austro-Hungary as well with only 2 title ethnicities and only two official languages. Kingdom of Serbs, Croatians etc and later Yugoslavia were essentially Serbian dominated empires and Communist Yugoslavia only worked as long as Tito was alive. two official languages for a multi-ethnic emprie is good enough. how many official languages did the Soviet Union have? besides it's not recommendable to have so many official languages, just look at India, there needs to be some sort of overall lingua franca to easen communication on the federal level. the problem with Austria-Hungary was that the Magyars were not a dominating ethnicity like the Czechs for example. Czechs should have received more privileges to suit their status. well there is a difference between prisoners of war and deserters. Czechs etc were the latter, while Russia indeed took over a million Austro-Hungarian prisoners afetr the battle of Lemberg and the siege of Przemysl, the K.u.K. Army from then on was more stabilized and was mostly on the advance thereafter and numbers of subsequent PoWs low.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 16, 2009 22:41:22 GMT 3
the problem with Austria-Hungary was that the Magyars were not a dominating ethnicity like the Czechs for example. Czechs should have received more privileges to suit their status. By this statement are you saying the Czechs were dominating because of their numbers? I'd like to understand what your criteria for "dominating ethnicity" is. Also, Czechs were really under Austrian administration so I'm a bit confused about the comparison between Czechs and Magyars. Magyars dominated the ruling class in the Kingdom of Hungary.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 16, 2009 22:46:34 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jul 16, 2009 23:18:36 GMT 3
yeah the United States of Austria, it would have warped the old Monarchy into the 20th century, unfortunately it never came into beign because of ww1. By this statement are you saying the Czechs were dominating because of their numbers? I'd like to understand what your criteria for "dominating ethnicity" is. Also, Czechs were really under Austrian administration so I'm a bit confused about the comparison between Czechs and Magyars. Magyars dominated the ruling class in the Kingdom of Hungary. Hungarians were only a dominating ethnicity because they were historically so. numbers of population say more than territory controlled. even in Hungary (incl. Slovakia and Transsylvania etc) Magyars made only about 50% of the population. the biggest ethnicities in Austria-Hungary were Germans, Czechs, Poles and Ukrainians, in this order and all in the Cisleithanian part. Hungary only became truly equal to the German (Cisleithanian) parts after 1849. before that, it was just Austria. even though the Army 'seggregation' in German (Cisleithanian) and Hungarian (Transleithanian) already existed before that.
|
|