Bosna-historijski izvori(pregled) i Srpsko-Hrvatsko svojatanje Bosne Ponedjeljak, sep 22 2008

Agresorski Srpsko-Hrvatski mitomani i falsifikatori te njihove pretenzije na Bosnu 

U svojoj knjizi “Historija Bosne i Bosnjaka” (2001,Sahinpasic) Mehmedalija Bojic na ovu temu pise:

“….Knjiga ( Dominika Mandica Etnicka povijest Bosne i Hercegovine(ZIRAL,Toronto-Zurich-Roma-Chicago,1982)) je sigurno hvale vrijedna sto se tice novih podataka,nekih uspjesno izvrsenih i datih analiza,objavljenih nekih do sada nepoznatih izvjestaja i dokumenata,posebno iz arhiva Katolicke crkve i njenih organizacija i date obimne naucne aparature(izvora i literature) i sl.

Medjutim,ovaj autor cini gresku u prilazu da pod svaku cijenu dokaze hrvatstvo pa i tamo gdje ga nije moglo biti.Tako postupaju i mnogi srpski historiografi samo obratno.Po dr. Mandicu Hrvati su svi koji su po doseljenju Juznih Slovena i prijema krscanstva sa Zapada (Rima) bili katolici.Pa buduci da su slavenska plemena nastanjena na Dinarskom planinskom masivu (ukljucujuci tu Dalmaciju,Bosnu,Duklju itd.) primili krscanstvo sa zapada,onda su oni,po dr.Mandicu,jos kada se uz to nekriticki osloni na Ljetopis popa Dukljanina,prirodno svi Hrvati.Srecom u nauci je ovo pitanje prakticno rascisceno.To znaju i hrvatski i srpski historicari,ali im to nije odgovaralo niti odgovara radi pretenzija ranijih i sadasnjih rezima na Bosnu i Hercegovinu,i to na osnovi “historijskih prava na ovu zemlju”.Jos do sada nije nigdje nadjen jedan crkveni ili drzavni spis,povelja ili bilo sta slicno iz srednjeg vijeka u kome bi pisalo da je Bosna bila jedna od hrvatskih zemalja i da su u njoj bilo kada zivjeli samo Hrvati.Medjutim sacuvan je veliki broj spisa i dokumenata,posebno u arhivima katolickih institucija iz kojih se jasno vidi da u Bosni zive patareni(bogumili) i katolici,da se tamosnji narod naziva Bosnjanima,a njihovi vladari bosanskim banovima ili kraljevima.Zasto bas nikad nisu crkveni dostojanstvenici u srednjem vijeku nazivali taj bosnjacki narod ili njihovog vladara – hrvatskim ili srpskim imenom?

O rasprostranjenosti imena srpskog i hrvatskog na Bosnu i njen narod u srednjem vijeku vode se izmedju hrvatskih i srpskih historicara rasprave i polemike vec vise od stoljeca i po.U nekim srednjovjekovnim bosanskim poveljama zaista se pominju Srbi i srpski jezik.Medjutim pisari povelja u Dubrovackoj republici,od vremena vladavine srpskog Velikog zupana Stevana Nemanje,dakle od 1174 godine,od kada je uzeo Zahumlje,Travuniju(sjeverne susjede Dubrovniku) i Duklju (dio danasnje Crne Gore),bili Srbi.“…Zato je on (pisar) i onda kada mu je bilo povjereno da napise koju ispravu za bosanske vladare pisao povelje po srpskom nacinu,upotrebljavao ekavicu i jezik nazivao srpskim.

Medju prvim srpskim istoricarima koji su pokusali naucno da dokazu da je Bosna bila sastavni dio srpske zemlje,i prvobitne drzave jos u doba ustanka Hrvata oko rijeke Save (juzno od Zagreba protiv Franaka,sa Ljudevitom Posavskim (819-822)na celu),bio je Ljub Jovanovic.On je jos 1900 godine napisao i objavio u casopisu “Brankovo kolo” raspravu pod naslovom O Bosni s pocetka VII do sredine XII veka.Jovanovic je,koristeci se Ajnhardovim analima i tekstu o Ljudevitu Posavskom i njegovom “bjezanju ka jugu medju Srbe” zakljucio na osnovu svojih pretpostavki da je Ljudevit mogao naci Srbe samo u Bosni (izmedju Vrbasa i Drine) i na prostoru rijeke Kolubare (sjeverozapadna Srbija).Medjutim,on je ipak ostao pri zakljucku da su se rijeci “na jug” morale odnositi na prostor Bosne.Taj njegov zakljucak i pretpostavku prihvatili su kasnije svi srpski historicari i koristili ga,uz podatke iz druga dva pomenuta izvora,isto tako nesigurna,kao vjerodostojne cinjenice.

Od Jovanoviceve rasprave,pa sve do danas u gotovo svim djelima srpske nacionalne istorije,i u istorijskim atlasima za skole,Bosna se tretira kao srpska zemlja.Odatle poticu i ona tzv. “istorijska prava na Bosnu”.Ali,poznati medievist sa Zagrebackog univerziteta dr. Nada Klaic,koja je 1989. godine publikovala djelo Srednjovjekovna Bosna (Zagreb,1989),naucno je opovrgla Jovanovicevu tezu o Ljudevitovom “bjekstvu medju Srbe u Bosnu”.Prema njenom tumacenju,Ljudevit Posavski je zaista “pobjegao na jug” (iz svoje posavske Hrvatske) ali u SRB,mjesto koje se pod tim imenom zvalo jos od Rimljana i gdje su zivjeli Dalmatinski Hrvati.To mjesto se i danas nalazi na istoj lokaciji u gornjem toku rijeke Une,u Lici (zapadna Hrvatska).

O drugom i trecem izvoru koje su obilato koristili i srpski i hrvatski medievisti,historijska nauka je vec ranije dala svoj sud.Porfirogenitov podatak u spisu De administrando imperio o dolasku i naseljavanju Srba i Hrvata i to na poziv vizantijskog cara Heraklija(610-641),na danasnje prostore,odavno se ne uzima kao valjana cinjenica.njima je trebalo i u Porfirogenitovo vrijeme pokazati da su ovi narodi vazali vizantijski.Srpski historicar dr.Sima Cirkovic,koji u svom djelu Istorija srednjovjekovne bosanske drzave (Beograd,1964) takodjer zastupa tezu da je Bosna bila jedna od srpskih zemalja,dok istovremeno o vrijednosti Porfirogenetovog spisa pise:”Temeljna kriticka proucavanja spisa O narodima(De administrando imperio) pokazala su da on predstavlja kompilaciju u kojoj se gotovo ne oseca originalno stvaranje piscevo…”.Ovaj Porfirogenetov spis je ipak donekle znacajan za Bosnu jer se u njemu prvi put (u jednom pisanom historijskom izvoru) pominje rijec i naziv zemlje Bosna.

O Ljetopisu popa Dukljanina ili Barskom rodoslovu postoji vrlo opsezna literatura.Ovaj historijski izvor koriscen je prema nacionalnim potrebama i porijeklu historicara.Tako je Ljetopis posluzio hrvatskom medievisti dr.Ferdi Sisicu da ustvrdi kako je Bosna u ranom srednjem vijeku bila hrvatska zemlja.A prema srpskom istoricaru Simi cirkovicu “to je skromni sastav nepoznatog popa,nastao u Baru (sada Crna Gora) u drugoj polovini XII veka”.Inace u Ljetopisu (hronici) popa Dukljanina Bosna se uvijek pokazuje kao jedna veca politicka i teritorijalna cjelina.Pitanje procesa nastajanja bosanske drzave u ranom srednjem vijeku i to bas od IX do XII vijeka,podrobno je razradio sarajevski akademik dr. anto Babic jos 1955. godine u svojoj raspravi O pitanjima formiranja srednjovjekovne bosanske drzave.

Otimanja prekrajanja i svojatanja bosanske historijske proslosti i njene drzave,kao i razne teorije o tome cija je bila i jeste Bosna,cjelishodno je pratiti i sagledavati i kroz razmatranja historiografskih djela i njihovih autora i to od prvih pocetaka do najnovijeg doba.Medju prvima koji su u svom historiografskom radu ispoljavali pretenzije prema Bosni bio je hrvatski knjizevnik,historicar,politicar i baron Pavao Riter-Vitezovic (1652-1713).On je u svojim spisima razvio misao o cjelokupnoj Hrvatskoj u koju je ukljucio i Bosnu.Ona je prema Vitezovicu,”srce Ilirika”(“Cuore Ilirici”).Vitezovic je kao clan komisije za razgranicenje izmedju Habsburske monarhije i Osmanskog carstva nakon Karlovackog mira (1699) izradio elaborat beckom dvoru u kojem je Hrvate,Srbe i Slovence prikazivao jedinstvenim imenom Hrvata,trazeci da se Hrvatskoj pripoje sve juznoslavenske zemlje koje budu oslobodjene od Turaka.

Pretenzije prema Bosni i Hercegovini na osnovu “historijskih prava” ugarske krune iskazivala je i Habsburska monarhija pomocu historiografskih djela.Tako je na njen podsticaj i,vjerovatno,narudzbu napisao historicar L.A.Gebhardi 1780 godine Istoriju drzave Bosne i Rame.Publicirao ju je u okviru jedne visetomne Istorije svijeta.Posto je Habsburska monarhija tezila da osvoji i pripoji svom carstvu sve zemlje koje su nekada pripadale Ugarskoj i cekala priliku da istjera Osmansku imperiju iz Vlaske,Srbije i Bosne i Hercegovine i da naslijedi ovu na Balkanu,to je za njen generalstab i drzavne potrebe ceski historicar Maksimilijan Šimek napisao 1787 godine Politicku istoriju kraljevine Bosne i Rame od 867 do 1741 godine.Djelo je izaslo kad se car i kralj Josip II spremao da povede odlucujuci rat sa Turskom radi osvajanja Bosne,prosirenja svojih teritorija na svim posjedima Mletacke Republike na Balkanskom poluostrvu i,najzad,radi zauzimanja Albanije.Pretenzije Austrije prema Bosni i Srbiji naisle su na protivljenje vec nacionalno svjesnih i umnih ljudi iz redova Srba,koji su osporavali “historijska prava” na Bosnu i Srbiju.Arhimandrit i historicar Jovan Rajic je,u namjeri da ospori historicara Šimeka i austrijske pretenzije,napisao Istoriju raznih slovenskih naroda narocito Bugara,Hrvata i Srba (I-IV,Wien,1794).U njoj je prvi od svih srpskih spisatelja prikazao Bosnu kao srpsku zemlju.On je prvi medju Juznim Slavenima napisao i Istoriju juznoslavenskih naroda,i to sve na osnovu narodne tradicije i iz patriotskih pobuda.On,prirodno,nije mogao da napise kriticku historiju,jer nije koristio nikakve vjerodostojne izvore,niti potrebnu literaturu.Prije toga je napisao Kratku istoriju Srbije,Raske,Bosne i Rame(1793),slicne naucne vrijednosti.

U prvoj polovini 19.vijeka historijska nauka i njene pomocne discipline sporo su se razvijale.Otkricem i objavljivanjem mnogih primarnih pisanih izvora,u drugoj polovini toga vijeka,gotovo svi istaknutiji srpski i hrvatski historicari su se bavili i bosanskom historijom i dali svoj znacajan doprinos osvjetljavanju njene proslosti.Medjutim,u nedostatku sigurnih izvora iz ranog srednjeg vijeka svi su odredjivali cija je Bosna prema svome nacionalnom porijeklu.Tako je historicar i prvi pisac historije Bosne i Hrvatske dr.Vjekoslav Klaic (1849-1928) u svom radu Povijest Bosne do propasti kraljevstva (Zagreb,1882) napisao da je Bosna mozda bila hrvatska zemlja.Tu njegovu rijec mozda svjesno su previdjeli svi hrvatski povjesnicari,koji su mu bili savremenici ili zivjeli poslije njega.

O prvom srpskom historicaru Ljub Jovanovicu,koji je pokusao naucno da dokaze da je Bosna bila sastavni dio srpske zemlje i prvobitne drzave jos u ranom srednjem vijeku te njegovom nekritickom koriscenju izvora,vec je vilo govora.Od te Jovanoviceve rasprave,pa sve do danas(90-tih godina XX vijeka) u gotovo svim svim djelima nacionalne historije i u gotovo svim historijskim atlasima za skole Bosna se tretira iskljucivo kao srpska zemlja.

Uoci Drugog svjetskog rata znacajnije djelo o Bosni pod nazivom Historija Bosne (Beograd,1940) napisao je dr.Vladimir Corovic.Premda je pisao sa dosta objektivnosti,i on je zastupao tezu da je Bosna bila srpska zemlja.Nakon toga rata najobimnije djelo i sa najvise naucnih pretenzija napisao je dr.Sima Cirkovic pod naslovom Istorija srednjovjekovne bosanske drzave (Beograd,1964).Premda u ovoj knjizi ima izvanredno dobro i tacno napisanih poglavlja,opservacija i zakljucaka cini se da je knjiga imala prvenstveni zadatak da posluzi odredjenim politickim snagama kao naucno pokrice za pretenzije prema Bosni kao vjekovnoj srpskoj zemlji.I akademik dr.Mihailo Dinic je u svojim radovima uvrstavao rani period srednjovjekovne proslosti Bosne u istoriju srpskih zemalja.Nazalost,tako je to M. Dinic uradio i u Historiji naroda Jugoslavije(I,Zagreb,1953),koja je sacinjena na inicijativu Savjeta za nauku i kulturu pri vladi FNR Jugoslavije.U toj knjizi je proslost Bosne od VI do XII vijeka prosla gore negoli u udzbenicima Kraljevine Jugoslavije.Jer,taj period,koji se u toj Historiji obradjuje na 318 strana,Bosni je pripalo svega desetak redova,pa i to montirano na stetu historijske istine jedne stare juznoslovenske zemlje i drzave Bosne.

Proslost Bosne nije bolje tretirana ni u srpskim,ni u hrvatskim historijskim atlasima.Njihovi historiografi i kartografi su se,izgleda,presutno dogovorili o krojenju granica drzave Bosne u ranom srednjem vijeku.Jedni stavljaju granicu dodira hrvatske i srpske drzave u to doba na rijeci Vrbasu,drugi na rijeci Bosni,a treci na rijeci Drini – kako kome odgovara.U vrijeme postojanja Kraljevine Srba Hrvata i Slovenaca,odnosno Jugoslavije,izdato je vise falsificiranih historijskih atlasa.Tako je u Istorijskom atlasu za opstu i narodnu istoriju koji je priredio istoricar Stanoje Stanojevic (1874-1937) Bosna prikazana tako da je sve od 9. do 12. vijeka bila jedna od srpskih zemalja i kao takva uvijek u sastavu srpske drzave.U ovom njegovom atlasu Bosna je u periodu od XII do XX stoljeca prikazana na jednoj omanjoj kartici srazmjera 1:2.750 000.Ovaj Stanojevicev atlas (zvanicni udzbenik za studente) izdat je,istog sadrzaja,i u Beogradu (1940-Geca Kon A.D.).U Skolskom istorijskom atlasu koji je izdat u socijalistickoj Jugoslaviji,a priredili ga Relja Novakovic,Gavra Skrivanjic,Vladimir Stojanovic i Zeljko Skalamara,a po narudzbi Zavoda za udzbenike u Beogradu (ovaj atlas je bio najtirazniji i dozivio je niz izdanja) drzava Bosna se tretirala u svim izdanjima kao srpska zemlja,i to sve od IX do XX vijeka.Najvjerodostojniji Istorijski atlas za nacionalnu istoriju (od rimskog perioda do zavrsetka I svetskog rata-1918) uradio je Dragutin Prljevic,a objavilo preduzece ZNANJE iz Beograda.U njemu Bosna prvi put,koliko autor ove Historije Bosne zna,u ranom srednjem vijeku nije naznacena ni kao srpska ni kao hrvatska zemlja.Drzava Bosna je tek u ovom atlasu imala tretman onakav kakav je ta zemlja u proslosti i zasluzivala.

Do sada je,cini se,najpotpunije i najobjektivnije objasnjena rana srednjovjekovna proslost Bosne u Istorijskom atlasu koji je izradio dr Zvonimir Dugacki za poduzece “UCILA” iz Zagreba 1972 godine.On prikazuje proslost Bosne bez ikakvih opterecenja i kompromisa.Prvi put Bosna je ucrtana kao drzava u sklopu Balkana i evropskih drzava u raznim periodima svoga postojanja….”

 

 

 

 

 

Pregled historijskih vrela za Bosnu

Historija naroda Jugoslavije pocinje sa izlaganjem o Bosni sa Bosanskom feudalnom drzavom od 12 do 15 vijeka u drzavnom razvitku joj se ne priznaju razvojne faze koje su karakteristicn e za ostale feudalne drzave a pogotovo juznoslavenske.Misli se da su djelovi Bosne bili prvo uklopljeni u susjedne drzave pa se tek onda izdvojli u posebnu drzavu Nikola Radojcic razmatrajuci ljetopis popa dukljanina(lj.p.d) napisao kako mi je zao gledati gde nasi istoricari cesto pustaju Nemanjicku drzavu da iz nicega iznikne dok je ona sa svim svojim mocnim korenjem u drzavi opisanoj od Barskog rodoslovca.Gde je ikada tako mocna drzava izrasla iz nicega. Iz njegovog pisanja nigdje se ne vidi da bi i Kulinova i Tvrtkova takoder mocna drzava nalazila svoje mocno korjenje u drevnoj starini jer ako gdje onda se iz opisa Barskog rodoslovca neporecivo namece zakljucak o drzavnoj individualnosti Bosne u ranom srednjem vijeku Potpuno pasivnu ulogu Bosni dao je i znameniti historicar L Thalloczy on tvrdi da je u 7 stoljecu Bosna samo geografska oznaka za podrucje izmedu Drine i Vrbasa kojom je od kraja 8 stoljeca dominirao Bizant Pod uticajem Bizanta Bosna je stajala 2 stoljeca Bila je slabo nastanjena i zapravo res nullius Prema njemu Slavenska plemena naselila su dolinu rijeke Bosne na prijelazu 6 i 7 st. a u 12 st. Bosna se pojavljuje kao politicki individualitet koji igra veliku ulogu.U srpskoj istoriografiji preovladava misjenje da je Bosna tokom samih pocetaka svoje drzavnosti pripadala Srbiji iz koje se izdvojila u samostalnu oblast i potom prerasla u posebnu drzavu. Sto se teritorijalnog sirenja Bosne tice uvjek se mislilo da se je Bosna sirila na racun drugih drzava, ali ne postoje nigdje dokumenti prema kojima je doticni kraj bio u sklopu neke druge drzave, u Rimskom pravu postoji izreka “Non sufficit probare quod quis fuerit spoliatus, nisi probet se possidisse”, treba dokazati da je doticni teritorij oduzet od susjednih politickih jedinica, tj da su ga nekada posjedovale.

Dokazujuci da Bosna nije bila politicki subjekt historiografija napominje da je ona stalno mijenjala granice, ali ta tvrdnja podrazumjeva da su to isto cinile i susjedne drzave, osim toga upravo je Bosna imala najpostojanije granice, jer su eponima Bosna istocno do gornje Drine, Usora i Donji kraji jos prije bana Borica sacinjavali jednu politicku i teritorijalnu cjelinu

De Administrando Imperio

Bizantijski car,Konstantin Porfirogenet krajnje jasno navodi u ovom svom djelu da je Bosna razlicita zemlja od Srbije,prvo nabraja naseljene gradove u Srbiji pa onda naseljene gradove u Bosni.Kratkotrajna vlast srpskih agresora nad Bosnom vrijedi koliko i nedugo poslije toga kratkotrajna vlast hrvatskog agresora nad Bosnom,a poslije toga i agresorske Bizantije.Kratkotrajne strane agresije na Bosnu i nista vise. Historiografija je naglasavala da je Bosna bila “zemljica”  te da je stalno mijenjala granice. treba napomenuti da je Porfirogenet i u drugim slucajevima koristio izraz hora i horion za jednu te istu zemlju. Nakon sto je pobrojao 6 gradova nekrstene Srbije Porfirogenet dodaje da se u Bosni nalaze dva naseljena grada Katera i Desnik. Neki Srpski mitomani smatraju da je Bosna bila u sastavu Srbije, medutim to je tumacenje neodrzivo jer on ne kaze da bi se Katera nalazila u Bosni vec prema Bosni. Do ove zabune je doslo jer su se pojedini autori drzali krivog latinskog prijevoda umjesto grckog izvornika. Neki blesavi Hrvati ala Mandic tvrde da su oni naseljavali Bosnu, mada za takve tvrdnje ne postoje nikakvi dokazi,nigdje nisu pronaceni arheoloski ostatci proto-Hrvata(Azijata) u Bosni, ama bas nigdje. Nigdje ne postoje:

- dokazi o naseljenju Hrvatskog odnosno Srpskog plemena na bosanske planine centralne Bosne
- dokazi o hrvatskom ili srpskom imenu koje je bilo barem dominantno u starim spisima
- arheoloska nalazista maksuz Hrvata odnosno Srba takodjer
- i najvaznije – ne moze se objasniti proces odrodjavanja od hrvatskog odnosno srpskog imena u Bosnajcko. Kroz prizmu ondasnje svijesti.

Neki historicari su formirali i spekulativno misljenje da je titula Ban prodrla u Bosnu kroz nekakve njene “politicke veze” “u dodiru sa Hrvatskom’,za sto nema apsolutno nikakvih relevantnih dokaza,jer nikada i nigdje nije zabiljezeno da je Bosna ikada bila u statusu nekakve “hrvatske banovine” ikada tokom Srednjeg Vijeka.Takodjer vrlo je bitno naglasiti i to da cijelim tokom postojanja samostalne srednjovjekovne hrvatske drzave nijedan hrvatski vladar ne nosi titulu Ban,nego nose titule Knez i Kralj.Upotreba Banske titule u Hrvatskoj za vrijeme njene srednjovjekovne samostalnosti je bitno drugacija nego u Srednjovjekovnoj Drzavi Bosni,jer se u Hrvatskoj koristi kao titula nizeg ranga od titule vladara zemlje i njena pojava je u Hrvatskoj vise anegdotalna,nego sto je tradicionalna,za razliku od Bosne gdje je ne samo tradicionalna,nego i najvisa vladarska titula! Historijska je nepobitna A cinjenica da titula Ban nikada nije bila hrvatska vladarska titula,nikada je nije nosio nijedan hrvatski vladar,i to tokom cijele srednjovjekovne nezavisnosti Hrvatske,a cinjenica da se titula Ban pojavljuje i u Bosni i u Hrvatskoj,naravno,apsolutno ne znaci da je ona hrvatskog porijekla,jer se mnoge titule sa istim nazivom pojavljuju u razlicitim zemljama na Balkanu.Npr. titula zupan se pojavljuje i u Bosni i u Hrvatskoj i u Srbiji,a jedino sto je zajednicko u svemu tome jeste da je titula zupan Avarskog porijekla,ili primjer mnostva drugih titula,kao sto su to Knez,Vojvoda itd,koji se pojavljuju takodjer u razlicitim zemljama.Ono sto je sustinski bitno jeste upravo njihova drugacija upotreba u svakoj pojedinoj zemlji.Da su Bosnjaci preuzeli titulu Ban iz Hrvatske onda bi je i koristili na isti nacin,ali nisu.Jer,onda bi najvisa titula Bosanskog vladara bila titula Knez,kao sto je to bilo u Hrvatskoj,ali upravo je suprotno,titula Knez u Bosni je titula nizeg ranga,a ne najvisa vladarska titula zemlje.

Iz antickog doba,Spomenik sa nalazista kod Zenice iz 4. stoljeca nove ereU novijim radovima o ovoj tematici,kao sto je to nacni rad naslovljen “O PORIJEKLU VLADARSKE TITULE BAN U SREDNJOVJEKOVNOJ BOSNI” prezentovan na II internacionalnom kongresu balkanske turkologije odrzanom u Mostaru od 3.-6. septembra 2002.,navode se i primjeri postojanja rijeci i titule Ban i kod Ilira i Kelta,koji su zivjeli na teritoriji Bosne puno prije dolaska Avara.

“Anali” franackog hronicara Einharda

Poznati srpski iluzionista Ljub Jovanovic je,koristeci se Ajnhardovim analima i tekstu o Ljudevitu Posavskom i njegovom “bjezanju ka jugu medju Srbe” zakljucio na osnovu svojih pretpostavki da je Ljudevit mogao naci Srbe samo u Bosni (izmedju Vrbasa i Drine) i na prostoru rijeke Kolubare (sjeverozapadna Srbija).Medjutim,on je ipak ostao pri zakljucku da su se rijeci “na jug” morale odnositi na prostor Bosne.Taj njegov zakljucak i pretpostavku prihvatili su kasnije svi srpski historicari i koristili ga,uz podatke iz druga dva pomenuta izvora,isto tako nesigurna,kao vjerodostojne cinjenice??

Ali,poznati medievist sa Zagrebackog univerziteta dr. Nada Klaic,koja je 1989. godine publikovala djelo Srednjovjekovna Bosna (Zagreb,1989),naucno je opovrgla Jovanovicevu tezu o Ljudevitovom “bjekstvu medju Srbe u Bosnu”.Prema njenom tumacenju,Ljudevit Posavski je zaista “pobjegao na jug” (iz svoje posavske Hrvatske) ali u SRB,mjesto koje se pod tim imenom zvalo jos od Rimljana i gdje su zivjeli Dalmatinski Hrvati.To mjesto se i danas nalazi na istoj lokaciji u gornjem toku rijeke Une,u Lici (zapadna Hrvatska).

Dakle,Ljudevit nije pobjegao nikakvim “Srbima” ,nego dalmatinskim Hrvatima,pogledati dakle knjigu dr.Nade Klaic “SREDNJOVJEKOVNA BOSNA – POLITICKI POLOZAJ BOSANSKIH VLADARA DO TVRTKOVE KRUNIDBE”(Zagreb,1989),i uzivati u sveopcem ismijavanju svih srpskih iluzija o Bosni.

Jovan Kinam o Bosni

 

 http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c236/rijaldo/IvanKinam.jpg

Skenirana stranica iz knjige povijest Bosne u 9 i 10 stoljecu od Muhameda Hadzijahica.

 
Ljetopis popa Dukljanina

Dukljaninove vijesti o povremenom vladanju agresorskih srpskih i hrvatskih vladara nad Bosnom vrijede koliko i vijesti o agresiji Njemacke na Rusiju,apsolutno nista.

O tome dr.Nada Klaic kaze:” No, ove nevjeste projekcije o srpstvu Bosne vrijede isto koliko Sisicevo dokazivanje o hrvatsvu Bosne. Medjutim nekriticki izvjestaj Konstantina Porfirogeneta o Sklavinijama moze posluziti kao podloga za zakljucke samo onom historicaru kome nije odvec stalo do historijske istine. On je uglavnom iste vrijednosti kao i Dukljaninove vijesti o vladanju hrvatskih ili srpskih vladara nad Bosnom. To su tek povremeni izleti susjednih vladara koji nisu niti su mogli izmijeniti stoljetni polozaj bosanskih zemalja jer su one bez Hrvata i Srba odavno isle svojim, od njih posve odijeljenim putem.“

Srpski iluzionisti sanjaju dalje da se u bosanskim poveljama pojavljuje izraz Srbin u znacenju stanovnik Bosne (1232-1235, 1240, 1241, 1333, 1367, 1382, 1399, 1451) itd.

U bosanskim poveljama Srbi se zaista ponekad i spominju,ali samo kao strani narod Bosni,.U srednjovjekovnim poveljama se na brojnim mjestima pravi jasna razlika izmedju onog sto je bosansko i sto je srpsko.

Narod srednjovjekovne Bosne su bili Bosnjaci o cemu nam svjedoce mnogobrojne povelje bosanskih vladara,darovnice,glose na bogumilskim vjerskim knjigama i mnogi drugi izvori,u kojima se jasno i JEDINO istice starinski naziv za Bosnjake,sto je “Bosnjani”,odnosno bosansko narodno ime za stanovnike Bosne,a ne srpsko.Kakvi Srbi,kakvi bakraci

Da navedemo nekoliko primjera:

-POVELJA DUBROVCANIMA BANA STJEPANA II KOTROMANICA IZ 1332 GODINE:

“15. avgust 1332.)

Ako Bosnjanin bude duzan i pobjegne – da mu nije vjere ni ruke od gospodina Bana.

Utvrdi zakon ko je prvi bio medju Bosnom i Dubrovnikom, da zna vsaki chlovjek, koji je zakon bil: Ako ima Dubrovcanin koju pravdu na Bosnjaninu – da ga pozove pred gospodina Bana ili pred njegova vladaoca – roka da mu ne bude odgovoriti.”

-POVELJA BOSANSKOGA KNEZA VLADISLAVA STJEPANOVICA IZ 1353 GODINE:
“I da ne moze prijeti nitkore u nasem gospodstvje Vlatkova cloveka – ni sam Ban Tvrtko, ni njegov brat Knez Vlk, – bez volje Kneza Vlatka. Na to su mu vjeru dali i prisegli! A tojzi vjeri i prisesi svjedoci – Dobri Bosnjani “

-JELENA KOTROMANIC,1354 GODINE:

“V`ono vrijeme,kada pridje gospoja Bana mati s` Ugra i s` svojim sinom i s` Knezom s` Vlkom i kada bi stanak na Milah vse Zemlje Bosne i Dolnjih kraji i Zagorja i Hlmske zemlje,prisegla je gospoja Bana mati i njen sin gospodin Ban Tvrtko dumanadesete Dobri Bosnjane,Knezu Vlatku Vlkoslavicu,a sizi su prisegli…”

-POVELJA KRALJA TVRTKA IZ 1366 GODINE:

” I sto ga ne sudi Djed s dva Strojnika s njim. ….. I da ne suzanj nikadar dokle je korijen u Bosne Crkve Bozje. Da o tom ima crkva stati.

A tomu svjedoci Dobri Bosnjane : Vojevoda Vlkac, Zupan Crnul, Knez Bogad, Tepcic Belhan, Knez Branko Prinic.”

-POVELJA DUBROVCANIMA IZ 1405 GODINE – KRALJ TVRTKO II:

“U ovu nepravedni rat, Uchinih s gospodinom Hercegom i po svijetu s vlasteli Bosanscimi i vishe togaj, da je vidomo vsakome: Tko godi je Bosnjanin ali Kraljstva Bosanskoga prije rata bil dlzhan komu godi Dubrovcaninu, volja na viri mu uzeto na gospockoj, a moze Dubrovcanin tozi istinom pokazati – da se ima Dubrovcaninu vratiti i platiti.

…Sto sudije odluce nitko ne moze potvoriti. A shto je uzel vojevoda Sandalj i knez Paval Radinovich, volja ini Bosnjanin, ljubo Kraljstva Bosanskoga, komu godi Dubrovcaninu dobitak, volja ine richi u siju rat, tomuj uzetju da je sudja knez Vukac Hranich i sh njim vlastelin drugi Bosanski, koga sh njim Kraljevstvu mi poshlje.”

-PISMO KRALJA STJEPANA TOMASEVICA PAPI IZ 1461 GODINE

“Ja ne istem zlatnih brda, ali bih bio rad da moji neprijatelji kao i ljudi u mojoj zemlji uznaju kako mi tvoja pomoc nece uzmanjkati.

Jere, ako Bosnjani budu vidjeli da u ovoj rati nece biti sami i da ce im mnogi ini pomioci – hrabrije ce u rat iti i vojevati, a tagdi i Turachka vojska nece bez straha u moje vladanje naprasno ulisti.

Prilazi u moju zemlju su veoma teski, a tvrde na mnogim mjestima nedobitne, tere ne dopustaju da se prodre u moje Kraljevstvo.”

-BOSANSKI KRALJEVSKI RODOSLOV IZ 1482 GODINE- PETAR OHMUĆEVIĆ

“Petar,istije Ohmućevića,po starini Bosnjanin,a radi nepovoljnog razumirja i pogube Bosanske,priÅ¡ašćah njegovijeh starijeh – sad je Dubrovčanin,koji za milost njegove stare gospode slozi i postavi ovo rodoslovlje,za slavu Bosansku i svakoga vridnoga Bosnjanina,dokole Bog dopusti i njegova sveta volja izvrsi.”

Srpski iluzionisti dalje sanjaju da većina vladara iz dinastije Kotromanic titulira kraljevima «Srbljem» na prvom mjestu kao jedine etnicke odrednice, Što bi oznacavalo priznanje etnicke pripadnosti Kotromanica??

O bosnjackoj kraljevskoj porodici Kotromanic : Ime Kotromanic je ilirsko u osnovi,kao sto je Bosna rijec ilirskog porijekla,a samim time i ime za njen narod,Bosnjaci,je izvedenica ilirske rijeci.Dakle,Kotromanici su bosnjacka i naravno bosanska kraljevska porodica,koja je kao i svaka druga kraljevska porodica u Evropi imala krvne veze sa drugim kraljevskim i plemickim porodicama,pa tako i sa Nemanjicima.Jedna od Tvrtkovih baba je bila kcerka srpskog kralja Dragutina i madjarske princeze (katolkinje),i to je sva Tvrtkova krvna veza sa Srbima,.Jedan od najpoznatijih srpskih historicara,Sima Cirkovic,sam naglasava da u trenutku kada Tvrtko pretendira da uzme i srpsku kraljevsku krunu,pored bosanske,u nijednom srpskom rodoslovu nema nikakvog pomena Kotromanica,Cirkovic doslovno konstatuje sljedece::“…ni u jednom od srpskih rodoslova nema nikakvog spomena vladara iz kraljevske porodice Kotromanic”

Ime Kotroman,a time i Kotromanic,,je takodjer ilirsko,bosansko domicilno ime u svojoj osnovi,Pasic o tome doslovno kaze:Ime Kotroman je slozeno: Kotro-man. Prvi kompozit nastao je od ilirskog Catarum, iz cega je, u skladu sa glasovnim promjenama, nastalo Kotor. Metatezom -or > ro iz ilirskog Kotor nastalo je Kotro-. Za nastanak kompozita -man postoji vise razlicitih mogucnosti.

Grb Kotromanica je originalni bosanski kraljevski grb, a ako neko ima problema da shvati da je bosanski kraljevski grb drugaciji od srpskog,pogledati sljedecu sliku:

BOSANSKI KRALJEVSKI GRB

Kraljevski grbovi Srbije i Bosne su razliciti,nego su i kraljevske krune Bosne i Srbije,DVIJE RAZLICITE KRUNE,Bosanska kraljevska kruna je konacno priznata i od strane pape,kao razlicita kruna od srpske.Pametnom dosta.

Tvrtko je bio nosilac dvije kraljevske krune,pored bosanske proglasio se je nosiocem i srpske krune.Suocen sa problemima oko medjunarodnog priznanja bosanske krune kralj Tvrtko je morao da nadje nacina da opravda svoje krunisanje i ozakoni bosansku krunu,te se odlucuje da upotrijebi svoj rodoslov i uzme krunu susjedne Srbije (Raske),koja je bila bez kralja u to vrijeme,cime bi bio priznat na medjunarodnom planu,a kada bi nju uspio uzeti,onda bi automatski bio u stanju dobiti medjunarodno priznanje za bosansku krunu,sto mu je bio prvi i krajnji cilj,uz veliku ekonomsku dobit od ubiranja tzv.”Mitrovdanskog prinosa”,kojeg su Dubrovcani placali nosiocu srpske krune.

Da je Kralju Tvrtku titula “Kralj srbljem” bila samo od ceremonijalne “vaznosti” pokazuje i cinjenica da Kralj Tvrtko 1390 godine odbacuje tu titulu u potpunosti,te od tada njegova titula glasi :”Kralj Raske,Bosne,Dalmacije,Hrvatske i Primorja”,sto jasno govori,ono sto je vrlo poznato,da su titule samo jedno politicko sredstvo,koje se mijenja po potrebi,i nista vise.Kasnije takodjer i drugi pripadnici Bosanske Kraljevske porodice Kotromanic ponovo uvrstavaju izraz “Kralj srbljem” u svoje titule,iz slicnih razloga kao i Tvrtko,omogucavajuci dugotrajnu vlast Bosne nad Srbijom,a svi iz bosanske kraljevske porodice Kotromanic,kada mu se eksplicitno obracaju,NAROD U BOSNI ZOVU ISKLJUCIVO BOSNJACKIM STARINSKIM IMENOM,STO JE BOSNJANI .

Titula koja je isla uz bosansku krunu je bila “kralj Bosne”,a titula koja je isla tradicionalno uz srpsku krunu je bila “kralj Srbljem”,ali samo u pocetku,jer tu titulu “kralj Srbljem” Tvrtko odbacio 1390 godine i na njeno mjesto stavio titulu “kralj Raske”,i zasto je to uradio,vjerovatno zbog toga jer je Srblje tajnovito nestalo sa lica zemlje,pa je tako nestalo i iz Tvrtkove titule. 
Vise o Tvrtkovim titulama na sljedecem linku:
http://www.zemljabosna.com/kotromanici.html
Srbi dalje kazu da,posto je stara Bosna područje ćirilske, a ne latinične pismenosti (osim u natpisima na latinskom i talijanskom), pa je prema tomu srpska, jer je ćirilica ” srpsko nacionalno pismo” LOOOOOOOOOOL. Sve povelje Kotromanica i kameni nadgrobni spomenici su “ispisani srpskom ćirilicom” LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL ,sto je apsolutna nebuloza vjerovatno nastala negdje uz gusle,stado ovaca i flasu rakije )

Medjutim te budale zanemaruju jednu vrlo vaznu cinjenicu,cirilica nije srpsko,nego bugarsko pismo koje se rasirilo i po mnogim drugim zemljama,pa su tako nastala i bosanska cirilica,koja je po svojoj originalnosti toliko odskakala od svih ostalih verzija cirilice,da ju je cak i jedan Vuk Karadzic nazivao bosanskim pismom,da bi lijepo ukazao na njenu bosansku originalnost,i uz to je taj isti Vuk Karadzic tvrdio da bosancica uopce nije cirilica,nego sasvim zasebno pismo,sto je i misljenje brojnih drugih naucnika.Treba napomenuti i to da su bosancicom ispisane skoro sve srednjovjekovne bosanske povelje kao i svi natpisi na steccima,dakle bosanskim pismom,a ne srpskim,kakvim srpskim,gluho bilo

Srbi dalje sanjaju da Kotromanići oznacavaju svoj jezik «srpskim» (1333), Å¡to po ideolozima pansrpstva znači da je «srpska», jer je po njima Å¡tokavsko narječje etnički srpsko….po njima i po nikome vise.:)

Kotromanici apsolutno nikad i nigdje ne nazivaju svoj jezik srpskim.Prilikom prijepisa jedne povelje bosanskoga bana Stjepana II Kotromanica,koji je vrsio pisar iz Srbije,zaposlen u Dubrovniku,cirilicu naziva “srpskim pismom”,dakle pisar iz Srbije,a ne bosanski ban.
Najocitiji primjeri razlike izmedju Bosnjaka i Srba,a i Hrvata jesu njihovi razliciti jezici i njihova razlicita narodna imena.

Bosanski jezik se kao razlicit jezik od srpskog i hrvatskog jezika spominje tokom srednjovjekovne Bosne,krajem 14 stoljeca u djelu “Skazanie iziavljeno o pismenah”,koje je napisao bizantijski putopisac,konstantin Filozof.Prvi rjecnik bosanskog jezika napisao je Mehmed Uskufi 1631 godine,dakle skoro 300 godina prije Srba,dok su Bosnjaci imali svoj rjecnik Srbi jos nisu ni znali sta je to i za sta sluzi? ….nego su mirno nastavili cuvati svoje ovce i slicnu zivinu i uzivali u carima svoga tradicionalnog cobanskog zivota….,pa ce onda,jos i sljedece reci:

“U starijoj je proÅ¡losti osnivač Srpske pravoslavne Crkve, Sveti Sava, obilježavan kao posjednik sadaÅ¡nje Hercegovine (i njoj rubnih dijelova). Otud izreka o Bosni i Hercegovini Svetog Save djedovini” LOOOOOOOOOOL

Srpska pravoslavna crkva postoji u Bosni,a i Hercegovini koja je,naravno, oduvijek sastavni dio Bosne,TEK od 1920 godine.Na osnovu sporazuma izmedju Vlade Kraljevine SHS i Carigradske patrijarÅ¡ije od 18. marta 1920. godine “Sveti Arhijerejski Sinod Vaseljenske patrijarÅ¡ije donio je odluku od 19. marta 1920. godine, broj 2056., kojom daje blagoslov na prisajedinjenje “ujedinjenoj srpskoj pravoslavnoj crkvi” eparhija koje do tada nikada nisu bile u sastavu srpske pravoslavne crkve ukljucujuci i eparhiju u Bosni,koja je uvijek do tada bila u sastavu Carigradske patrijarsije,uz period za vrijeme Austrougarske kada je de facto pravoslavna crkva u Bosni bila samostalna! Vlada Kraljevine SHS isplatila je Carigradskoj patrijarÅ¡iji za taj pristanak milion i pet stotina hiljada zlatnih franaka. Tom odlukom Carigradska patrijarÅ¡ija oslobadja od svoje vlasti i prisajedinjuje pravoslavnoj srpskoj crkvi eparhije koje su do tada bile pod njenom upravom,dakle TEK 1920 godine srpska pravoslavna crkva se po prvi puta pojavljuje u Bosni !
I nikakve narodne veze nije bilo izmedju Bosnjaka pravoslavaca i Srba pravoslavaca….Bosnjaci pravoslavci (danasnji tzv.”bosanski Srbi”),inace,poticu u ogromnoj vecini od stocarskih plemena pravoslavnih Vlaha,a ostatak od Bosnjaka bogumila i nikakve veze nemaju sa Srbima.

Par Srba je takodjer primjeceno i nadasve ismijano,kako su “ustvrdili” da se u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni pojavljuju imena koja su “specifično srpska” (Vukasin, Radoje, VukÅ¡a, Mitar, Vukan, Milutin, Mrča, Božidar, Dražeta…??? LOOOOOOOOOOL

Sva navedena imena su,u stvari,slavenska imena po porijeklu i nosili su ih i Bosnjaci tokom srednjovjekovne Bosne,dakle ni po cemu nisu specificno srpska,nego su i bosnjacka,takodjer treba napomenuti da su Bosnjaci nosili brojna druga slavenska imena koja nasi zapadni susjedi Hrvati tragicnim slucajem takodjer smatraju specificno “hrvatskim”.

To im sve nije bilo dosta,pa su onda pokusali da “dokazu” da je i Bosanska Crkva bila pravoslavna iako je pravoslavaca u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni bilo koliko i danas pripadnika sekte Hare Krishna,dakle prakticno NIMALO.
Bosanska Crkva,kako joj to i samo ime kaze,bila bosanska narodna vjerska organizacija i kao takva pripadala samo Bosni i Bosnjacima.Tokom cijelog srednjeg vijeka bila je trn u oku kako zapadnom tako i istocnom krscanstvu,koji su je proglasavali heretickom i podizali krstaske ratove protiv nje.Bosanska crkva je bila pravoslavna isto toliko koliko je katolicka ikad bila bogumilska.

Historijski je nepobitno utvrdjeno da su Bizantijski pisci,i istocna pravoslavna crkva koristili naziv “kudugeri” za bogumile. Tako,na upit sionskih monaha pravoslavne vjere,da li smiju primati darove i moliti se za Bosanskog Vojvodu Stjepana Vukcica Kosacu,gospodara Hercegovine,buduci da taj nije pravoslavni,carigradski patrijarh Genadije II Skolarios (1453-1459) im je odgovorio pismeno,”da su se mnogi kudugeri obratili na pravoslavlje i sam Herceg Stjepan da se obratio,ali da se ne smije javno kao takav pokazati radi svoje vlastele.Radi toga darove mogu primiti i za Hercega se privatno moliti,ali ne javno u crkvi”.Bitno je uociti da ovdje,dakle,pravoslavni patrijarh,SREDINOM 15 VIJEKA, sve stanovnike Hercegovine naziva bogumilima….od kojih su neki prelazili i na pravoslavlje,ali je takvih uvijek bilo sasvim minoran broj.

Na podrucju,uze Bosne APSOLUTNO nikakvih tragova pravoslavne vjere nema sve do okupacije Bosne od strane Turaka koji omogucavaju useljavanje u Bosnu brojnim pravoslavcima,vecinom pripadnicima stocarskih plemena pravoslavnih Vlaha,koji su danas poznatiji kao tzv.”bosanski Srbi” ili jednostavno “Vlasi”.

 

 

 

Srpski pokusaji manipulisanja nekim Bosanskim poveljama

U sljedecih nekoliko primjera se moze vidjeti samo jedno: srpski pokusaji manipulisanja historijom Bosne,u cilju prisvajanja Bosne i to svim raspolozivim sredstvima,pa i prekrajanjem historije po vlastitoj volji:

PAPINO PISMO DUBROVCANIMA IZ 1187 GODINEPOVELJA BOSANSKOGA BANA NINOSLAVA DUBROVCANIMA (1232-1235)POVELJA STJEPANA II KOTROMANICA DUBROVCANIMA IZ 1333 GODINEBOSANSKA KRALJEVSKA PORODICA KOTROMANICPOVELJA DUBROVCANIMA KRALJA TVRTKA IZ 1378 GODINE

Neki skenovi iz knjiga na Engleskom jeziku, Fine,Malcolm,Shewill,Maier,Lampe,Clancy…

Balkan at the crossroads p.2 Click me

Bosnia and Herzegovina: a tradition betrayed by John V.A Fine and Robert J. Donia Click me

A Bosnian`s identity as a  Bosnian goes back many centuries whereas the classification of any Christian Bosnian as a  Serb or a Croats  goes back barely a century.

P 14-15

A quote from Noel Malcolm`s book Bosnia: a short history p.10

As for the question of whether the inhabitants of Bosnia were really Croat or really Serb in 1180, it cannot be answered, for two reasons: first, because we lack evidence, and secondly, because the question lacks meaning. We can say that the majority of the Bosnian territory (in 1180) was probably occupied by Croats – or at least, by Slavs under Croat rule – in the seventh century; but that is a tribal label which has little or no meaning five centuries later. The Bosnians were generally closer to the Croats in their religious and political history; but to apply the modern notion of Croat identity (something constructed in recent centuries out of religion, history, and language) to anyone in this period would be an anachronism. All that one can sensibly say about the ethnic identity of the Bosnians is this: they were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia.

But tell that to the Asiatic barbarians.

Bosnia a cultural history written by a Croat historian Ivan Lovrenovic p 93 Bravo Ivan

Lovrenovic argues that the term ‘Bosnian Croat’ dates only from the 19th century, and thus belongs among the phenomena of the modern era in Bosnia, above all the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and the great changes that it wrought in the region. While agreeing with Bosnian historian Srecko Džaja’s thesis that Bosnia’s Catholics had for centuries felt a kinship to the Catholics of Western Europe, he believes that ‘Croatization’ is a modern phenomenon, inseparable from the 19th-century ideology of bringing all Croats into one state, from political events following Austria’s annexation of Bosnia, and from the concept of ‘Catholic Croatian national sentiment’ introduced by the church hierarchy. “Before the modern political use of “Croat” as the name of a nation near the end of the 19th century,’ Lovrenovic writes, ‘… Bosnian Catholics with great pride considered Bosnia alone as their country and homeland…’ Nearly 150 years of forgetting their Bosnian [pre-Catholic] roots produced the ‘self-ignorance’ of today’s Bosnian Croats…

H.P Liotta dismemberng a state  Click me

Yugoslavia as history by John R. Lampe p 23 Click me

Viktor Meier-Yugoslavia a history of its demise 200-201 Hit me

The History of the Balkan Peninsula: From the Earliest Times to the Present (Eastern Europe Collection) by Ferdinand Schevill 202-203 Link

The history of Bosnia From the middle ages to the present day Link 1  Link 2

Tom Clancy: Bosnia a travel guide p19 click me baby one more time

Noel Malcolm: Bosnia-a short history p10-11 You know the drill 

John V.A Fine: When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans  Link

 

One Response »

 

Hrvati su bili prljavi koljači, a Tomislav nije ni okrunjen JUTARNJI LIST Subota, nov 21 2009

ZAGREB – Kada se svojedobno hrvatski povjesničar Neven Budak drznuo posumnjati u velebnu krunidbu Tomislava za hrvatskog nam kralja u pustopoljini kod Duvna zagonetne 925. godine, kao podatak koji je zabetoniran u našoj domoljubnoj svijesti, inženjeri nacionalnih duša skrili su taj rad od nježnih ušiju hrvatskih učenika.

I Odjel za srednjovjekovnu povijest Hrvatskog instituta za povijest smatrao je svojom dužnošću prosvjedovati protiv podatka na internetskim stranicama Stalne misije Hrvatske pri UN-u u New Yorku kako dotični Tomislav nije prvi hrvatski kralj. Hrvatska povijest puna je mitskih sablasti i ideoloških interpretacija. Što smo mi sve u školama učili iz nacionalne povijesti, a za dosta toga se slobodno može reći da je bio konstrukt koji bi trebao potvrditi neupitnu povijesnu slavu i starost Hrvata, nakon čega bi nam ponosito tek trebala spuznuti suza radosnica preko časnog obraza.

Povijesna magla

Kao rijetko koja znanost povijest je podložna pretjerivanju, skrivanju i blago rečeno nevjerodostojnoj interpretaciji događaja, likova i pojava. Mnogo toga u školi smo učili kao povijesnu činjenicu koja se nije smjela dovoditi u pita-nje iz viših nacionalnih ili političkih interesa.

 

Ako je netko pokušao nešto drugačije prikazati, u najmanju je ruku bivao pribijan na stup nacionalnog srama ili proglašavan izdajnikom jer se posumnjalo u neku veličanstvenu pobjedu, koja zapravo to nije, ili genijalnu zamisao nekoga našeg predalekog vladara koji nam osim sumnjivih fragmenata, nekakvih slova na kamenu, nije ostavio puno pouzdanih podataka o svom postojanju.

Hrvatska povijest morala se ugurati i u šablone država i političkih tendencija u kojima smo dulje ili kraće vrijeme bivali. Hrvatska nam je zato povjesnica dala jedan broj neutemeljenih, teško provjerljivih te lažnih i nategnutih podataka o našoj veličini. Puno je misterija, tame i magle na hrvatskoj povijesti.

Stvaranje ‘dobrih’ Hrvata

No, problem možda ne bi bio toliki da se radi samo o dalekim vremenima zavijenima u zagonetnost zbivanja na hrvatskom kršnom kamenjaru, da se bajkovitost hrvatske povijesti nije proširila do današnjih dana.

- Pitanje je koliko su povjesničari spremni biti hrabri i otvoreni da ne dopuste da ih se iskorištava za podgrijavanje nacionalnih mitova, neovisno o reakcijama. Naravno da je povijest znanost koja interpretira, ali je ipak znanost. I učenje povijesti nema odgojnu funkciju, odnosno nije funkcija učenja povijesti u školama ta da se stvaraju ‘dobri’ Hrvati – kaže povjesničar Tvrtko Jakovina.

- Sve nacionalne povijesti slijede istu šprancu. Sve dijele nekoliko zajedničkih odrednica: trude se dokazati da nacija ima dugi i stabilni kontinuitet pa su tako sve redom stare odvajkada, vuku podrijetlo iz mračnih šuma i pustopoljina pradavnih vremena. Nacionalne povijesti polažu puno pažnje srednjem vijeku, kada se formiraju osnovne karakteristike nacije.

A svaki pristup proučavanju povijesti kao da piše o razvoju čovjeka, pa imamo različita vrednovanja povijesti: bolja i lošija razdoblja, uspone i padove, propasti i slavne povratke, što samo podcrtava da se radi o konstruktu – objašnjava nam povjesničar Stefan Berger, profesor na Sveučilištu Manchester i voditelj projekta “Prezentiranje prošlosti – Pisanje nacionalnih povijesti u Europi”.

Goli opstanak

Sve povijesti barataju kanonom nacionalnih heroja, koji kadšto taj epitet objektivno ne zaslužuju ili se u jednom trenutku slave, a možda im je herojstvo sumnjivo. Naravno, postoje i nacionalni neprijatelji, koji su za druge – heroji. Svima je važna rasprava o granicama, odnosno teritorijima. Raspravljaju o tome tko poseže pravo na njihovo iskonsko područje ili pak koliko je “njihova iskonskog teritorija” izvan matične zemlje.

Dakle, svi narodi imaju svoje guste šume i močvare, tragična polja i junačke gudure iz kojih su došli njihovi preci, svoje Tuge i Buge, Zvonimire, Tomislave i ine, a sasvim je sigurno da nismo jedina nacija s posebnom misijom ili ona koja bi bila nepravedno zakinuta. Može se reći da svaki narod zaslužuje povijest kakvu ima, ma koliko je ukrašavao, revidirao i mitologizirao. Hrvatska povijest prepuna je različitih interpretacija, ovisno o trenutačnim potrebama – od “vjekovne borbe za južnoslavensko ujedinjenje” do “tisućljetne borbe za nacionalnu samostalnost”.

Hrvati se bore uglavnom za goli opstanak od raznih izrabljivača, bilo ideoloških (nacisti, komunisti) ili pak osvajača (Srbi, Mlečani, Turci, Mađari, Austrijanci).

1. Dolazak Hrvata na more

U naše iskonske krajeve, na kojima su već obitavale razne civilizacije, narodi i države, dolaze prahrvati. Oni se u romantičnoj verziji slike Otona Ivekovića predstavljaju kao krotki vizionari koji su s brda zamišljeno zagledani u pučinu i tada još nebetoniziranu obalu, a ne onakvima kakvi su bili – prljavi i znojni koljači i osvajači koji su u rosnu zoru 614. godine sravnili sa zemljom jedan razvijeni grad poput Salone. U prvim redovima tih divljačkih hordi bili su i Slaveni, odnosno prahrvati. Tko im je bio vođa ni ne znamo, jer nema nikakvog pisanog traga. Nije ni čudno – bili su nepismeni. Hrvatska je historiografija taj prljavi posao rušenja i razaranja dobrohotno svalila na Avare, kojih je također bilo u toj hordi i čije karakteristike nisu bitno drugačije od starohrvatskih, ali ipak nisu sami razarali . Doduše, popljačkana Salona još se održala desetljećima prije nego što je sasvim propala, a Hrvati su polako osvajali svoja nova “vjekovno naša” ognjišta . Mi baštinimo njihova davna osvajanja ( jednostavno – tu živimo) i prihvaćamo ih jer su nam ti naši preci ostavili taj teritorij u amanet. Hvala im.

2. Ljudevit Posavski

Knez panonske Hrvatske od 810. do 823. godine, smatra se jednim od najvećih boraca za hrvatsku samostojnost i slobodu. Suprotstavljao se naletima Franaka tada vodeće europske kraljevine, ne želeći prihvatiti njihovu čizmu. Franci su, moćniji i brojniji, poduzeli čak šest ofenziva protiv drčnog Ljudevita i konačno ga 822. porazili (ili ovaj nije ni ulazio u zadnju bitku) i natjerali u bijeg. U ovoj povijesnoj priči dosta je loše prošao i knez primorske Hrvatske Borna, koji je potpisao pakt s Francima te je tako obilježen kao protuha i izdajnik. Za Ljudevita se vezuje i legenda da je nakon poraza pobjegao u Srbiju, odnosno među Srbe. Povjesničarka Nada Klaić dokazuje da je Ljudevit pobjegao u mjesto Srb (pa je zato došlo do zabune). No, golica teorija da je Ljudevit zbrisao među Srbe, gdje ga je tamošnji vladar, navodno kako i priliči, lijepo ugostio. Ipak, Ljudevit ubija tog vladara, misleći da će ga ovaj izdati Francima s kojima je bio u talu. Štoviše, preuzima vlast, ali su ga Srbi poslovično nezadovoljni hrvatskim vladarima prognali. Stiješnjen razvojem događaja, Ljudevit kasnije prihvaća vrhovnu vlast franačkog vladara, premda na kraju balade ipak bježi kod kneza Ljudemisla u Dalmaciju, ali jedne sparne noći 823., zlu ne trebalo, dokonča život nestašnog junaka Ljudevita. Saga o Ljudevitu vrlo je zgodna za sva razdoblja hrvatskih udruživanja i razdruživanja.

3. Krunidba kralja Tomislava na Duvanjskom polju

Ne postoje činjenični dokazi i artefakti koji bi potvrdili da se u maglovitom srednjovjekovlju – 925. godine – to stvarno i dogodilo. No, za Hrvate podatak je historijski, nacionalno i politički neupitan. Jedino što bi išlo u prilog tome jest činjenica da su samo Hrvati, pored onakve obale, vladali i krunili se u nekakvim vukojebinama sličnijima Tolkienovim zlosretnim carstvima. No, iako se ne može potvrditi da je Tomislav stvarno okrunjen te kada se i gdje to zbilo, ipak ga smatramo prvim hrvatskim kraljem. O tome govori i činjenica da su se njegovi nasljednici dosljedno nazivali kraljevima.

4. Kletva kralja Zvonimira

Kralja Zvonimira su prema legendi ubili poslovično nezadovoljni Hrvati u selu Kosovo kod Knina 1089. Ojađeni Zvonimir uvrijeđeno je prokleo Hrvate da će tisuću godina biti bez države. I stvarno, država propade, a Hrvati su samostalni postali tek nakon 900 godina, što je potaklo neke “povjesničare” da spomenu kako je Zvonimir zapravo prokleo nezahvalne Hrvate upravo na toliko godina! Legendu spominje Ljetopis popa Dukljanina iz 12. stoljeća koji je u 15. stoljeću preveden na hrvatski.

5. Petar Svačić i bitka na Gvozdu

Legenda o “narodnom kralju” Petru Svačiću (po najnovijim izvorima radi se o Snačiću), koji je u bitki s Mađarima 1097. godine na Gvozdu, danas njemu u čast Petrovoj gori, želio spriječiti propast hrvatske kraljevine. Petar je želio spriječiti neminovno stapanje hrvatskog kraljevstva u Ugarsku. Neosporno je da se bitka odvila u svibnju na propupalim obroncima Gvozda (ali se ne zna točno ), ali ne zna se s kakvom je vojskom raspolagao i u kojem je statusu Petar tamo bio. No, izginula je vojska, ali i sam kralj Petar. U školama je slavljen kao neprijeporni heroj koji je pokušao nemoguće, a posebno se naglašavala naknadno osmišljena odrednica – narodni kralj.

6. Bitka s Tatarima

Grobnička bitka 1242. godine, gdje su se prema neprovjerenim vijestima sukobili Hrvati s Tatarima, po svoj prilici nije se nikada ni zbila. Hrvati su naravno u toj virtualnoj povijesnoj bitki slavili. No, to nije smetalo Franji Tuđmanu da organizira velebnu proslavu u povodu godišnjice bitke koja se nije ni dogodila, što je ipak bolje nego kod Srba koji pak slave bitku koju su izgubili.

7. Matija Gubec i Seljačka buna zagorskih kmetova 1573.

Seljačka buna zagorskih kmetova rezultirala je mnoštvom mitova vezanih uz Gupca osobno,

a koji su se kasnije tumačili kao povijesne činjenice. Prema legendi koja se u školama predaje kao činjenica, seljačkog su vođu prvo malo mrcvarili užarenim kliještima, a kasnije ga oholo okrunili užarenom željeznom krunom. Da bi ga nakon te torture mađarski vlastelin Morencz Bahiczy bezočno još i raščetvorio! Brkati zagorski seljak ušao je u povijest, a ujedno je, navodno, povijesni lik s najvećim brojem ulica u Hrvatskoj. Glavni negativac cijele priče je feudalac Franjo Tahi. Uvriježilo se da je glavni uzrok Seljačke bune bilo zlokobno i nepristojno ponašanje te feudalne vucibatine, ali ipak su korijeni drugačiji i imaju u sebi prije svega ekonomske razloge. Priča se uklapala u kasnije antimađarske korijene hrvatskog otpora.

8. Urota zrinsko-frankopanska 1671.

Mnoštvo se legendi i priča stvorilo oko urote Zrinskih i Frankopana 1671., u kojima se ističe njihova hrabrost i mudrost te “stradanje za Hrvatsku”, a zapravo moramo priznati da se urota vodila vrlo loše i neorga-nizirano, amaterski, što pak potvrđuje njezin neosporno hrvatski karakter. Habsburgovci su htjeli neograničeno vladati te su nastojali u Hrvatskoj ukinuti bana i Sabor. Zrinski i Frankopan vucarali su se po Europi u potrazi za saveznicima . Bili su u Francuskoj, Poljskoj i Veneciji, ali nisu ozbiljno shvaćeni niti prihvaćeni. Tada čak pristaju na suradnju s Turcima, i to na način da bi Hrvatska bila u vazalnom odnosu, a Zrinski prihvaća da sultanu plaća i danak! No, uvjet je da on bude vladar s nasljednim pravom. Nakon toga logično je pitanje ima li u svakom zlu i nešto dobra.

Car Leopold I., koji je doznao za antidržavno vršljanje hrvatskog dvojca, zove ih u Beč 1670., tobože radi pomirenja. No, čim su stigli, dao ih je uhititi i zatočiti u zloglasnu kulu u Bečkome Novom Mjestu. Osuđeni su zbog urote i izdaje, i to odsijecanjem desne ruke i glave. To je 30. travnja i izvršeno. Osim toga, postoji još jedna legenda vezana uz zaplotnjački rad hrvatskog dvojca – oni su u ćeliji, suprotno legendama, navodno preklinjali za oprost, kako mrki carski dželat ne bi dekapitirao njihove plemenitaške glave. No, glave su im se ipak otkotrljale u nedokučiva bespuća hrvatske povijesnice.

9. Ilirski preporod 1830. – 1843.

To je općeprihvaćeni naziv za kulturni, nacionalni, društveni i politički pokret koji se u prvoj polovici 19. st. razvio u Hrvatskoj u ozračju narodnog preporoda. Današnja historiografija više ga voli nazivati Hrvatski narodni preporod, kako bi izbjegli komplicirana objašnjenja da je pokret nazvan Ilirskim (premda jest bio iskonsko hrvatski) jer je imao za cilj kulturno i političko jedinstvo “Ilira”, odnosno svih Južnih Slavena. Hrvatski ilirci su vjerovali da Južni Slaveni imaju jedinstveni jezik, pa su ga i zvali ilirskim. Tako su, recimo i bosanski jezik nazivali najmilozvučnijim ilirskim narječjem. No, Srbi i Slovenci nisu tada prihvatili te “ujediniteljske kulturno-političke” ideje iz Hrvatske. Obostrana nepovjerenja su, vidimo, tradicionalna, što ne treba uvijek biti loše. No, bez obzira na te ideale, Ilirski preporod nije bio projugo-slavenski u današnjem smislu riječi, kako se to u jednom periodu prenaglašavalo. Ne treba zanemariti i taj važan detalj, kao što bi to neki rado danas učinili. Kontekst je naravno bio drugačiji, a to se kod nas poslovično previđa. Bilo kako bilo, ideja “južnoslavenskog jedinstva” nastala je u krilu hrvatske inteligencije 19. stoljeća. To je bilo i razumljivo zbog miješanja raznih interesa na ovom našem malom prostoru – austro-mađarski pritisak s jedne, talijanska asimilatorska politika s druge te turska osvajanja s treće strane učinili su naše prilike prilično nelagodnima i opasnima te se stvorila preporodna ideja koja je nama Hrvatima pomogla da se nacionalno izgradimo te teritorijalno zaokružimo.

10. Radić: ‘Ne srljajte kao guske u magli’

Usklik vođe Hrvatske republikanske seljačke stranke Stjepana Radića u Saboru “Ne srljajte kao guske u magli”, u jeku žučne rasprave o ujedinjavanju sa Srbijom, često se spominje u smislu proročanskih riječi kojima je, poput spomenutog nesretnog uvredljivca Zvonimira, želio upozoriti Hrvate da ne ulaze u jugoslavensku zajednicu sa Srbima. Riječi su stvarno izrečene, ali tada nisu izazvale ni takav efekt niti je to tada tako shvaćeno. Taj Radićev, na kraju ipak proročanski, usklik tek se počeo rabiti kada je ujedinjenje u jednu državu pokazalo svoju pravu narav. Zapravo tusti Radić nije govorio protiv ujedinjenja, nego se protivio načinu na koji se ono izvodi. U Jugoslaviji se ta rečenica nije ni spominjala, a kasnije je dobila na gotovo kultnom značenju, premda ona sama po sebi, i da je stvarno izgovorena u kontekstu koji joj se sada pripisuje, ne mijenja na stvari. Odsrljali smo svoje.

http://www.jutarnji.hr/hrvati-su-bili-prljavi-koljaci–a-tomislav-nije-ni-okrunjen/361437/

 

Leave a Response »

 

Library of Congress screens film about Bosniak Muslims and Jews rescuing each other in Sarajevo Utorak, nov 10 2009

Zineba Hardaga, a Muslim woman who saved a Jewish family from the Nazis in Sarajevo.
Courtesy Yad Vashem Holocaust History Museum

The Library of Congress today screened “The Woman From Sarajevo”, a poignant, powerful documentary about a Muslim family who saved a Jewish family from the Nazis, and 50 years later was rescued by the Jewish family during the Bosnian war.

Zineba Hardaga became the first of only two Muslims to be honored by Israel as “Righteous Among the Nations,” recognizing non-Jews who risked their lives during the Holocaust to save Jews. She is the only Muslim to be buried in an Israeli Jewish cemetery.

During the 1992-1995 Bosnian war, the Jewish Kabilio family helped the Hardaga family escape to Israel.

The Hardaga’s daughter, son-in-law, and granddaughter converted to Judaism. The daughter, Sara, now works at Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust History Museum. Yad Vashem has six drawers of records, and one photograph, of the stirring Kabilio-Hardaga case.

The documentary begins with Sara entering Yad Vashem through an archway inscribed with “You shall live again, and I will set you upon your own soil” (Ezekiel). That is the perfect metaphor for the extremely moving story, told with natural eloquence by members of both families in the fascinating film by Israeli documentary maker and writer Ella Alterman.

Somehow, bathos, pathos, and sentimentality are avoided. Modest heroism, humility, and humanity illuminate every moment of the 65-minute documentary.

The film is interspersed seamlessly with archival footage of Nazis invading Sarajevo in World War Two, Hardaga’s “Righteous” award ceremony in 1985, and neighbors shooting at neighbors during the bloody Yugoslavian civil war.

Sara, who even keeps kosher, and her daughter Stella, who was an officer in the Israeli Air Force, talk about their family’s rescuing wounded during the Bosnian war, and moving from cellar to cellar, never going outside. “We were afraid of everybody.”

The film ”proves the victory of the spirit of humanity,” Alterman told the audience, which included representatives of the embassies of Israel and Bosnia and Herzegovina . “Never in life do we know when we will be saviors, and when we will be survivors.”

She is working now on a film about a Jewish hospital in World War Two Berlin protected by Adolf Eichmann, the architect of Hitler’s so-called “Final Solution” — the Holocaust.

Alterman’s other films include “A Fence in the Middle of the Sitting Room,” the story of a Syrian village divided between two nations, and “With Strong Hand,” about orthodox Jews who are also masters of Asian martial arts.

She is especially interested in exploring the lives of women who demonstrate the courage to forge their own paths, like these inspiring women from Sarajevo.

For more info: ”The Woman from Sarajevo” and other Ella Alterman films are available through Ruth Diskin Marketing & Distribution, www.ruthfilms.com.

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-983-DC-Art-Travel-Examiner~y2009m11d9-Library-of-Congress-screens-film-about-Muslims-and-Jews-rescuing-each-other-in-Sarajevo

Leave a Response »

 

Various youtube videos that prove chetnik cooperation with the Nazis Petak, okt 16 2009

Modern Nazis

Modern Serbian heroes, new age chetniks and war criminals.

Ljubica Stefan
retired professor: refugee from Belgrade where she lived for 30 years, researches genocide against Albanians, anti-Semitism and persecution of Jews, as well as the behavior of Serbia and the Serbian Orthodox Church in World War II
Klaiceva 10
10 000 Zagreb CROATIA

ANTI-SEMITISM IN SERBIA DURING THE WORLD WAR II

There are still some significant historical facts about Serbia before and during the Second World War which remain suppressed or are even distorted with prejudice, not only in Serbia but also abroad. We believe this to be the consequence of ignorance due to the energetic, and unfortunately successful, propaganda of Yugoslavia and Serbia these past fifty years. Thus, these facts should always be pointed out in a precise and detailed manner whenever this dark period is mentioned, which is, in effect, only just one such period in a series of similar centuries-old ones in Serbian history.

Until today, Serbia has worn a hero’s halo in a land of martyrs as a member of the anti-Hitler coalition and an alleged contributor to the victory in the Second World War. This is completely untrue. Serbia was not an unfortunate occupied land subjected to German terror. During the entire war, Serbia was the most faithful ally to the Third Reich on European territory under its domination. As opposed to all the other countries of the former Yugoslavia, there was no organized, and an even less massive, armed anti-Hitler movement. When England finally ceased supporting and exalting Draza Mihajlovic, even Radio London, according to the Serbian press, had Mr. Harrison direct the following warning: “It is up to the Serbs to brighten their reputation and cleanse their blemishes. Serbs, remember! The Greater Serbian hegemony will never return. The other nations in Yugoslavia have been exploited enough by the Serbs. You are being given one more opportunity to save yourselves. There has been enough dawdling and enjoyment on the part of the Serbs while other nations have been fighting.”

Serbia was a real state during World War II. It consisted of the following: a government, organized ministries, independent authorities in towns and villages, its own army which was armed by the Germans, and this Nedic’s Serbian State Guard, the Serbian Guard, the elite Ljotic’s Serbian Voluntary Corps, the Serbian Border Guard, the Serbian Country Guard, as well as numerous Cetnik units. Within the Ministry of Internal affairs there was a large, well-organized and well-trained Serbian police force, with numerous prisons, customs services and special police schools. Elementary and secondary schools were in function in the towns and villages. Many newspapers and magazines were being printed as well as a large number of books. New theaters and cinemas were being built. Museums were open. Art shows and concerts were organized. New laws and statutes passed by the Serbian government were published in the “Official Gazette”. The Serbian National Bank, with a Serbian governor at its head, printed new Serbian money with an exchange rate in relation not only to the German mark but also to other significant European currency including the kuna. Ancient Serbian flags were hoisted everywhere and the national coat of arms was emphasized. Kosovo and the divine Knez Lazar were celebrated, St. Sava and the Karadjordjevic dynasty were exulted, etc. Until the very final moment, the Serbians believed that they would be rewarded with the creation of a Greater Serbia after Hitler’s victory!

Anti-Semitism was, along with the militant, conquering, genocidal Orthodoxy of St. Sava, one of the constant ideologies and politics of the Serbian Orthodox Church before, during and after the Second World War. This is in effect even today. That is to say, the Serbian Orthodox Church (SPC) is in fact a kind of political party. It is greater Serbian and even racist. Pastoral work has been completely neglected.

Anti-Semitism began to spread in Serbia before the Second World War. The Fascist Party “Zbor”, Dimitrij Ljotic, prominent Church dignitaries, as well as the church press, were the main generators of the expansion of anti-Semitism. Ljotic roused the Serbian population with the following types of statements: “The Jewish people use the explosives in their hearts to destroy Christian communities and lead them to their ruin”; “The destructive action of the Jewish spirit may be felt in all domains of human life”; “Judaism is appearing as a cultural and national danger, which we must be free of as soon as possible”. Ljotic’s model and idol was the leader of the Third Reich. He praised him in the following manner: “Hitler is the instrument of God’s providence. He is an instrument which can no longer be stopped until his assigned mission has been fully completed.” A great number of Orthodox priests were very active members of “Zbor”. The most prominent was the main ideologist of Orthodoxy and anti-Semitism in the Serbian church, episcopate Nikolaj Velimirovic who had been decorated by Hitler already in 1934. It was probably in gratitude that he wrote the following in his book about St. Sava in 1935: ” We must regard with esteem the present German leader who, in the twentieth century, came up with the idea of St. Sava and as a layman took upon himself a task for his people as befits only a holy man, a genius and a hero.” Several years later, in 1939, he publicly preached racism: ” We are people of an Aryan race, which fate has given an honorary role… so that tribes of weaker races and inferior faiths will not…”. In the “Glasnik Srpske pravoslavne Patrijarsije” (Gazette of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate), letters about Jewish people such as the following were common: “Jews are enemies, sly as snakes and dangerous”. The same newspaper reported the following statement given by Patriarch Varnava to a German newspaper in 1937. “The Führer, is leading a battle which will benefit mankind”, “God has sent the German people, a führer with foresight. We believe his truthful words”. Sometime before this Varnava referred to the Soviet government as a “deceiving Jewish gang”.

Germany attacked Yugoslavia on April 6, 1941, and without battle on April 12 its army had already entered Belgrade which had been abandoned by the Yugoslav Army and by all authorities since the first day of the war. The unconditional surrender was signed by the generals of the King’s Army on April 17.

On the actual day of the German arrival, Milicevic, the Governor of Belgrade, informed the citizens on a posted notice that the Serbian army was already organized and armed. Several days later, Dragi Jovanovic became the Governor (he held this title until the end of the war), the Chief of the Serbian police, and later the Chief of Serbian Security. The following statement made by SS General Harald Turner, only a month after his arrival in Belgrade, proves the unlimited power of the Serbian police: “I attempted to re-establish the activity of the police system with particular haste. Today, executive power in Serbia is carried out by the police and gendarmes who have been given weapons… internal relations are regulated by local organs without German interference.” Dragi Jovanovic himself stated in a report to the Gestapo: “Occupying forces were always able to rely on the Belgrade police. Special Police forces dealt with their assignments with great enthusiasm and success, unlike any other police in any city in all of occupied Europe”. In 1946, at his trial in Belgrade, he added: “These results were better and greater than the results of the Gestapo itself in Belgrade.”

For the first four months, Milan Acimovic was at the head of Serbia with his Council of Commissars and then, General Milan Nedic, former Minister of the Yugoslavian Army, who had a pro-German and anti-Semitic orientation, took over the leadership in Serbia. Owing to the wholehearted cooperation of all Serbian authorities and the police with the Germans, SS-man Harald Turner, stated the following in 1942: ” Serbia is a nation in which the problem of Jews and Gypsies has been solved.” Franz Rademacher of the Nazi Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported: “The Jewish problem in Serbia is no longer acute. The only thing left is to solve the legal questions concerning property.” The chief of the German Security Service in Serbia, A. Schafer bragged: “Belgrade – the only larger European city which is cleansed of Jews, has become ‘Judenfrei.’” Let us be reminded of the historical fact that Serbia ingloriously took first place in the genocide against the Jews in Europe just three months after the meeting of Reinhard Heydrich, chief of the German Security Service, Heinrich Muller, chief of the Gestapo and Adolf Eichmann, chief of the Special Department for Jews, which was held on January 20, 1942, at Lake Wansee by Berlin when the decision was made to approach the ” final solution to the Jewish problem”. Specifically, at the end of April and the beginning of May of that year, the remaining Jews were killed in the Sajmiste concentration camp…

Until now, the Holocaust in Serbia has been an unspoken topic, a taboo. Jewish and Serbian sources offer relatively little data, mostly fragmented. What really happened, nevertheless, may be seen. The following was noted: “Only seven days after their arrival in Belgrade, the Germans announced that all Jews had to register themselves at Tasmajdan (Serbian Police Headquarters). Before then, they had already formed a special police force for Jewish people, with the help of the police, that is, the Civil Government of Belgrade. Every Jew received a yellow band.” Another source stated that “Jude” was written on the first bands and had the “stamp of Belgrade’s Governor”. On one original preserved band (from a later time, it appears), “Jude” is written in German and “Jevrejin” is written in Cyrillic. The following data was found as well: “The Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs, who always endeavored to deal with all their responsibilities on time, dealt with the Jewish problem, as well”. Also: “From among local traitors, the Gestapo trained the “Special Police” to battle against Jewish-Communistic actions. The special police closely collaborated with the Gestapo and was often the initiator of joint actions. The employees of the police were paid from a fund in which Belgrade Jews were forced to pay 1,400,000 dinars. Rewards for captured or killed Jews were paid from this fund as well…” By May 1941, German authorities had already announced the order by which “Jews were to register with Serbian police authorities”, “they cannot be public servants, they must immediately be eliminated by Serbian authorities”, so they were further forbidden to pursue a series of independent professions, to go to the theater or cinema, etc. Serbian authorities were declared “responsible for the carrying out of the order” which they immediately set out to do with in a conscientious and thorough manner, with the wholehearted approval of the press. Along with this, they rejoiced in the newspaper at the time: “Jews will never again be doctors, pharmacists, lawyers or judges in Serbia. The Serbs have finally opened their eyes”. Dragi Jovanovic, the Serbian Ministry of Justice, even the Musicians’ Associations and others, immediately proclaimed their own regulations that Jews turn in all radios and refrigerators even threatening citizens who might be hiding the property of their Jewish friends or providing them with unregistered shelter. They ordered the closing of all Jewish lawyers’ offices appointing Serbians in their places. They prohibited Jews to travel on Belgrade streetcars and refused work licenses to Jewish musicians and others. In keeping with the battle for a pure Aryan race, the newspapers started to publish employment offers which had as one of their first stipulations: “that they be of pure Aryan race, without Jewish or gypsy blood”. Confirmation of this racial purity was issued by the local Serbian authorities. Nedic’s “Ministerial Council” published the following order: “Property of the Jews who were citizens of the former Kingdom of Yugoslavia on April 15, 1941, belongs to Serbia if it is on Serbian territory, without any compensation”. The Serbian Council for the Management of Properties of Serbia of the National Mortgage Bank would then put the properties up for auction, placing an advertisement in the daily papers. The synagogue in Nis, which is now a part of the city museum, was among the properties listed. The Jews also had to pay a sum of 4,834,231 dinars to Belgrade’s Civil Government and a million dinars to the Belgrade municipality. According to a Jewish source, Serbians made up 33% of the buyers of Jewish properties! Some “deserving” Serbians, received, as a reward, a part of the looted Jewish money. The Gestapo Major Karl Krauss, ordered: “commencing July 1, 1941, every month until further notice, a sum of 10,000 dinars will be paid, without receipts, to Belgrade’s Police Chief and a sum of 6,000 dinars to his assistant from money collected from Jews in Belgrade”. Other than this, the Gestapo rewarded approximately 30 members of the Special Police with 10 to 20,000 dinars.

The physical liquidation of Serbian Jews began immediately in the spring of 1941. Almost all the men were killed by the autumn and the women and children and the remaining men were liquidated at the end of April and the beginning of May, 1942. The exact number of people killed is not known even from Jewish sources. Historian Jasa Romano, however, has come to the conclusion that 88% of all Serbian Jews were killed. The Serbian historian Sretenije Zrokic says that of the 11,870 Belgrade Jews only 1,115 or 9% survived the war. It was not only the Germans who captured and killed the Jews in Serbia, rather it was the Serbian Police, Nedic’s volunteers and Cetniks. Most were killed in the Sajmiste and Banjica concentration camps. Not a single Jew managed to escape from the camps.

The Banjica camp in Belgrade was established in July 1941 and shut down at the end of September 1944, a month before the withdrawal of the Germans from Belgrade. At a meeting between the Serbian Police and members of the Gestapo in June 1941, it was decided that one of the barracks of the former Yugoslav Army in Belgrade’s suburbs be transformed into a concentration camp. Dragi Jovanovic signed the document to this effect and the first prisoners were brought in on May 9. Svetozar Vujkovic was appointed director of the Serbian part of the camp where there were only Serbian police. The smaller German part was directed by members of the Gestapo. The commander of the camp and along with his assistant were German. The German and Serbian parts of the camps were completely separate.

The prisoners were watched by heavily armed guards: “Machine guns and reflectors were set up on the roofs. Day and night, double guards made up of one SS-man and a gendarme from the Special Police stood watch. Later when the police gained the trust of the occupier, the German guards were withdrawn”. The same Serbian source also said: “The camp management apparatus was also made up of prison wardens, headed by their commander, who had been chosen from the ranks of former gendarmes, now members of the Serbian guard.”

From partially preserved documents of the Serbian part of the camp we learn that 23,697 people were registered and 3,489 were executed by a firing squad. The German and Serbian police began, at the end of 1943, to destroy the documentation and to excavate and burn the executed bodies so that it is actually not known how many victims perished, nor how many were Jews, Serbs or others. The only thing that is known for certain is: not one Jew left Banjica alive… They were killed along with the other prisoners in the camp yard, shot down in the village of Jajinci at the foot of Avala, at the Jewish and the central cemetery in Belgrade. The Gestapo, the Special Police, and the Serbian National Guard performed the executions together. All the lists found were handwritten in Cyrillic. The prisoners were sent to the camps by the Belgrade Civil Government, the heads of the Serbian municipal police, the Serbian National Guard, Ljotic’s volunteer units, Serbian court-martials, and by regional and district leaders throughout Serbia. Execution lists were drawn up by the Special Police, the camp chief, Vujkovic, the Gestapo commander and his assistant. From the few preserved lists, it can be observed that even children were executed: 22 under the age of 7; 26 under the age of 14; 76 under the age of 17; even mothers with small children in their arms. Belgrade grave-diggers recall: “Members of the Gestapo and Special Police agents would draw women out of armored cars, one by one. Two men would hold each one by the arms and the third would shoot her in the head and then push her into the grave.” A Jewish source stated: ” From 1942 up to September 1944, Jews, who had found refuge in some villages in Serbia, were brought to the Banjica camp after being caught by Ljotic’s and Nedic’s men, as well as by Cetniks and handed over to the Germans for which they received financial rewards.”

The only surviving Jews in Serbia were those who remained unexposed in remote Serbian villages where peasants were hiding them. In a written report after the war, one of the surviving Jews said the following ” Draza Mihailovic’s Cetniks, mercilessly pursued Jews in that region, especially the Cetnik units that came from Ravna Gora (Draza’s main headquarters), whom we were forced to hide from just as we had to hide from the Germans. I know that it was these Cetniks who killed several families in that region in the most appalling manner.”

The majority of Serbian Jews were killed in the Sajmiste camp. There is no precise information and documentation is almost non-existent, yet it is estimated that the number of victims comes to at least 11,000. The camp was formed on the left bank of the Sava by the railway bridge at the entrance into Belgrade where the pre-war trade fair was located. This is where the name Sajmiste originated. This territory which was, at that time, deserted, uninhabited and marshy, was several kilometers from Zemun and formed a part of NDH (Independent State of Croatia) territory, so the Germans asked for it to be given to them. It is, however, completely untrue that this was an Ustasa camp which Serbian propaganda claims even today. Not one Ustasa ever entered the camp. The commander, Androfer, and his assistant, were SS-men. On Gestapo ruling, order and discipline were maintained by the Camp Council which was comprised exclusively of camp inmates who were at first solely Jews because there were no others and some agents of the Serbian police. Supplies were provided by the “Department of Social Care and Social Institutions of Belgrade’s Municipal Authorities”. At the beginning of December 1941, Serbian gendarmes called upon Jews in Belgrade to report to the Special Police and to hand over their house keys. The transfer of Jews, primarily women and children, lasted from December 8 until 12. Conditions in the camp were extremely difficult – the damp and the cold, hunger and epidemics. A Jewish source says: “The food was appalling and often not even the minimal amount of food was supplied. In Nedic’s units there were people who were no better than the Germans themselves.” What is almost unbelievable is that even the camp’s German commander protested against the quantity of supplies. The reply of Belgrade’s Municipal Authorities to the Germans was just as unbelievable if not insolent: “Provisions for the Jewish camp will be carried out once all other needs are met.”

As camp inmates starved and froze to death, they were transferred over the frozen Sava to Belgrade where they were buried. Many (the number is unknown) were led away to be shot by firing squads in Belgrade. They were killed in the same manner, in the same place and by the same people as were the Banjica prisoners. Some were killed by the Germans in a special gas truck on their way to Belgrade and buried in Jajinci but their number is not known. A Serbian company “Obnova” purchased the clothes of those. Some were led away to camps in other countries (numbers and destination are unknown). When the number of imprisoned Jews began to decrease, Serbian prisoners and others began to arrive. One of these prisoners recalls: “The criminals were the same as those in Banjica. The commanders were also the same – Germans, Nedic’s men and other Serbian fascists”. According to some data, all Jews in that camp were liquidated before May 9, 1942. Belgrade had become “Judenfrei”….

Another surviving Serbian camp inmate, wrote in his book of memoirs: “Several thousand Jews passed through the Sajmiste camp… Long lines of sad histories were written on the walls of the pavilions and in many places artistic portraits were completed. For days we returned to these final traces of thousands of people. There were surviving Serbians who told us various details about the life of the Jews in Sajmiste and who had allowed the Jews to write their final parting thoughts and vows .” Today, there is not a trace of these words at Sajmiste. Which of the “liberators” erased, destroyed and eradicated their every trace? Consequently, in the pavilions that remain today, consisting of offices and warehouses, there is not even a small plaque commemorating that this was the scene of a horrific concentration camp for Jews. On February 11, 1993, the European parliament adopted the Resolution on European and International Protection of Concentration Camps as Historical Monuments. But it seems this does not pertain to camp Sajmiste. Sajmiste, the largest Jewish execution camp in Serbia, is not even listed among the names of the 22 largest camps for Jews in Europe in the Memorial Center Jad Vashem in the Hall of Memoirs in Jerusalem. Of all the camps in the former Yugoslavia, Jasenovac is the only name listed! Does this intentionally imply that all Serbian Jews were apparently killed in the NDH in Jasenovac?

* * *

Finally, how did the Serbian Orthodox Church (SPC) act during World War II? Not one word of condemnation of the genocide, the yellow bands, the concentration camps or the racism was ever heard from them. Immediately upon the arrival of the Germans, representatives of the Holy Synod paid homage to the German military commander and stated, first in print and then in person: ” The Holy Orthodox Synod will loyally carry out the laws and commands of the occupying and territorial authorities and will, through its organs, endeavour to effect the complete abidance of order, peace and obedience.” The synod remained loyal to their promise until the end and it never violated its promise given to the “father of Serbia” General Milan Nedic that “the Serbian Orthodox Church will, in the spirit of St. Sava’s Orthodox tradition, continue to fight on his side”. There are no known cases of any Serbian Orthodox priest saving the life or attempting to save the life of one Jew, although some of them often openly expressed anti-Semitic attitudes in their sermons, instigating their congregation against Jews. Metropolitan Josif, as the head of the Serbian church during war time, signed orders that Jews be forbidden to transfer to the Orthodox faith, even though this would have saved them. Three episcopates were the first to sign the “Appeal to the Serbian people” of August 1941, in which over 500 of the intellectual elite of Serbia publicly expressed their support of the occupiers and quislings, which was a unique case in war-affected Europe.

* * *

One clear manifestation of Serbian anti-Semitism was the anti-Masonic, specifically the anti-Jewish exhibition which opened in Belgrade on October 22, 1941 and which was to support and justify the genocide against the Jews in Serbia and in Europe. Apart from the exhibits at the show, an overwhelming amount of propaganda material was prepared (over 200,000 various brochures, 60,000 posters, 100,000 leaflets, 108,000 copies of nine different post cards, 176 various cinema advertisements, four types of postal stamps, etc.). The organizers boasted: “Such a conceived exhibition will be unique, not only in Serbia but in the Balkans as well, not only in south-eastern Europe and Europe, but in the world”. The press awakened the national pride of the people: “The success of the Belgrade exhibition has surpassed Serbia’s borders and received deserved recognition by the press in entire Europe”. The pride of the organizers was directed to a truly unique occurrence in Europe during the war, this being the anti-Jewish stamps which showed abominable racist drawings, and which were to, according to requests by Serbian anti-Semites, “in the entire world, for all time, serve as the most convincing evidence of how one nation awakened when faced with the danger of disappearing(?)”. Milan Nedic expressed “his complete gratitude to the organizers and believes that the exhibition will have a great educational impact, because it systematically displays, in a clear manner, the work of the enemy of the nation and the people”.

* * *

Much time has passed since what has been described in Serbia, but anti-Semitism in Serbia, like the vampire, does not die. In 1985, the Serbian eparchy in Western Germany printed a book in Serbian and in Cyrillic written by the already deceased episcopate, Nikolai Velimirovic, supposedly in 1945 in the Dachau camp. The fact that this is completely untrue is another theme. The book preaches to the Serbian Orthodox people: “Today, Europe is primarily the battlefield of the Jews and the father of the Jewish devil. Europe is not aware of this and in this lies the dark tragedy of its peoples. Europeans, Christians and the anointed, have completely surrendered themselves to the Jews. They think as the Jewish people do, they have adopted Jewish programs, accepted Jewish lies as the truth, they travel the same paths as Jews and they serve Jewish goals”. There was no reaction from either side. In 1991, the Serbian Orthodox Church organized the spectacular transfer to Serbia of the remains of this anti-Semitic ideologist. The newsletter of the Serbian patriarchy “Pravoslavlje” printed an article in January 1992 by their correspondent in Israel “Jews Crucify Christ Once More”, with the following allegations: “Many Israelis are sick with hatred for the Christians. The hatred is open among the ordinary people. Politicians are perfidious and work in secret.”, etc. etc… Two weeks later, the Holy Orthodox Synod announced that the text ” sounds anti-Semitic, things are carelessly reported” and at the same time claimed: “the phenomenon of anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism is completely alien to the tradition and history of the Serbian Orthodox Church”. In February 1992, the Belgrade “Borba” wrote that at the entrance to the Jewish cemetery, someone had written: “Death to Jews and all Jewish p….”, but the whole affair was covered up. The “Tanjug” news agency announced a few days later that “the Jewish lobby had arranged the diplomatic recognition of Croatia and Slovenia by Russia”. One of Seselj’s commanders stated in Subotica that the property of Jews (and Croats) should be confiscated. In August 1993, the president of the Jewish community in Belgrade, commenting on their relations with the Orthodox Church, stated in a conversation with Zagreb Jews that the Orthodox Church “still preaches deicide and is still streaked with anti-Semitism”. Two months ago, in an Israeli newspaper, we learn that “a member of the Serbian parliament has accused the Jews of stabbing Serbia in the back”.

It seems as if the “Borba” journalist was correct when he concludes his article with the following words: ” Propagandistic platitudes on the non-existence of anti-Semitism in Serbia do not correspond to reality: there has always been anti-Semitism in Serbia”.

It is true, history does not repeat itself in Serbia, it merely continues in a uninterrupted series…

As do certain statements made by Serbian intellectuals, for instance: “it is a propaganda lie that Serbians liquidated Jews during the Second World War and that anti-Semitism was present in Serbia before the war and is present now!” This statement was made by Dr. Ljubo Tadic’s, a professor of the Faculty of Arts in Belgrade and a Serb, and Dr. Andrija Gams, professor at the Faculty of Law, sadly, a Serbian Jew.

http://www.hic.hr/books/seeurope/014e-stefan.htm#top

Leave a Response »

 

Bosanski franjevci brane Bosnjastvo Subota, aug 1 2009

Iz knjige porijeklo i pripadnost stanovnistva Bosne i Hercegovine doktora Envera Imamovica.

Leave a Response »

 

Razbosnjavanje i tajna politika Srbije u 19 vijeku Srijeda, jun 24 2009

Tekst je preuzet sa ovoga blog-a http://eglenbosnjacki.blogger.ba/ ja sam samo ubacio neke skenove i malo modifikovao tekst.

Bosna se razbosnila a Bošnjak se razbošnjio, bile su riječi bošnjačkih muhadžira koji su, poslije okupacije Bosne od strane Austrougarske, u ogromnom broju napuštali Bosnu odlazeći prema današnjem Sandžaku, Kosovu, Rumeliji (Makedoniji), Turskoj.
Pročitavši ove riječi u literaturi i zapisima koji govore o tim kaharnim vaktovima naše bošnjačke historije pitao sam sâm sebe: odkud te riječi „razbosniti, razbošnjiti….“ , šta one znače, koju poruku nose….?
Kad se otvori sehara bošnjačka, sehara sa kitabima, tj. knjigama, i kad se po njima zehricu razgrne može se odgovor pronaći.

U jeziku bosanskome postoji veći broj riječi koje počinju sa prepoz. „ras, raz“. Evo nekoliko takvih riječi, lingvistički, etimološki prikazane:

raspàrčati (bos.-perz.) < bos. izv. od parče, v.
- raskomadati
rashòdžiti, (bos.-tur.) < bos. izv. od hodža, v.
- razriješiti od hodžanske službe;

Kad se pogleda značenje riječi, na primjer:

„rasparčati“ – podijeliti na parčad, na komade, učiniti  da nešta  prestane  biti cjelina; podijeliti cjelinu na  dijelove
”rashodžiti” – učiniti da neko  više  ne  bude hodža

može se zaključiti kakvo značenje imaju i riječi „razbosniti“ i „razbošnjiti“.

„razbosniti“ – pokušati učiniti da Bosna ne bude više Bosna, pokušati učiniti da Bosna prestane biti Bosna, pokušati razdijeliti Bosnu, pokušati podijeliti Bosnu na parčad….
„razbošnjiti“ – pokušati učiniti da Bošnjak više ne bude Bošnjak, da prestane biti Bošnjak, promijeniti Bošnjaka, „razdijeliti“ Bošnjaka……

Jasno je da se riječima „Bosna se razbosnila“, u stvari kaže da nekakve sile pokušavaju „na vrat“ Bosne nabaciti smrtnu omču pokušavajući učiniti da Bosna više ne bude ono što je bila, da Bosna prestane biti Bosnom onakvom kakva je bila.

Ali, kako, na koji način, od kad se pokušava Bosna „razbosniti“? Ko je sve nastojao Bosnu „razbosniti“? Zašto se to pokušavalo uraditi? U čijem je interesu bilo da „Bosnu razbosni“?

Dževap, tj. odgovor na ova pitanja traži puno, puno pisanja, jer je nevjerovatno veliki broj oblika, načina i primjera o tome ko je i kako pokušavao Bosnu „razbosniti“. U svakom slučaju pokušaji da se Bosna „razbosni“ nisu došli tek sa ovom zadnjom srpsko-hrvatskom agresijom na nju 1992. god. „Razbošnjavanje“ Bosne i Bošnjaka počelo je aktivno prije više od dva vijeka. Ovom prilikom ja ću navesti samo jedan historijski dokument koji pokazuje kako je to rađeno, a to isto, na žalost, radi se i dana danas, samo drugačijim sredstvima i metodama.

U svojoj knjizi „Istorija Sarajeva i njegove okoline od praistorije do 1878. god.“, na strani 223. autor Vladislav Skarić navodi ovaj historijski podatak:

„U proljeće 1862. god. u Sarajevu je osnovano udruženje za nametanje srpskoga imena a u jesen iste godine i udruženje za nametanje hrvatskog imena…..“

Skenovi iz knjige Vadimira Škarića:

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8976/nfidk3.jpg

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/6452/2mebayb.jpg

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/2658/2ltlycl.jpg

Jukićev putopis i neka njegova zapažanja.

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/6861/dcekwh.jpg

Kod tadašnjih vlasti ovo udruženje bilo je ragistrovano kao „Društvo za kupljenje narodnih umotvorina“. A onda je van Bosne, u današnjoj Dalmaciji koja je kao i cijela Hrvatska tada bila u sklopu Austrougarske, tačnije u Drnišu, pronađen kaluđer Bogoljub (Teofil) Petranović u doveden u Sarajevo, navodno na mjesto učitelja. Dovela ga je, instruirala i cijelo vrijeme plaćalia srpska vlada iz Beograda, direktno knez Mihailo Obrenović. Novak Kilibarda o Teofilu Petranoviću bilježi ovo:
„Petranović je u Sarajevu bio na čelu odbora koji je imao cilj da se iskorjenjuje pogrdni naziv Vlasi, a da se populariše ime Srbin….. Fra Grga Martić, koji je živio u Sarajevu u isto vrijeme kada i Petranović, sjeća se 1906, u svojim Zapamćenjima, da je Teofil Petranović bio glavni organizator srpske propagande u Bosni…..

Vladislav Skarić, odličan poznavalac sarajevske prošlosti, veli da je Teofil bio duša srpskog pokreta u Sarajevu i da je rukovodio srpskim odborom koji je imao »revolucionarnih ciljeva«….. Svaki bosanski seljak kome je objašnjena veličina Rusije mora da je osjećao ponos što je, kao Sloven, dio jednog moćnog naroda. Učitelj i jeromonah Teofil sačekivao je pazarnim danom seljake na sarajevskim prilazima i objašnjavao im šta su i ko su Srbija i Rusija. Morao je ubjedljivo djelovati kao čovjek na čiju je preporuku Rusija poslala novčanu pomoć od po pedeset dukata godišnje na dvadeset novih škola u Bosni…..

Pošto je propagandom pripremljen teren, prešao je Petranović 1868. godine na organizovanje ustaničkih četa. Iz spiska njegovih »ustalaca«, koji je dostavio srpskoj vladi, vidi se da je bio organizator širokih razmjera. Organizovao je čete u Osječanima, Glasincu, Jahorini, Kosatiću, Borku, Zagorju, Lovnici, Konjicu, Lijevnu, Dobrunu, Mileševi, Prijepolju i Pljevljima….. redovno je spremao izvještaje srpskoj vladi o svom radu i kretanju političkog barometra u Bosni. Kako to sam kaže, Petranović je »junačke radnje spremio bio za Srpstvo i Srbiju, kako prvi srpski top pukne na Drini, da se čete na najpovoljnijim tačkama nađu«.

(Novak Kilibarda – studija Bogoljub Petranović kao sakupljač narodnih pjesama, koju je objavila Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti u Zborniku istorije književnosti, knj. VIII za 1974. godinu. ). Na internetu ova studija se može pročitati na linku: www.rastko.org.yu

Vrijedno je napomenuti još jedanput ovo: Od 1862. god. u Sarajevu i drugim većim bosanskim gradovima, pazarnim (pijačnim) danima izlazili su pred pravoslavne seljake agitatori obučeni od Teofila Petranovića, a svi plaćeni i instruirani iz Beograda, i seljake ubjeđivali da oni više ne treba da sebe nazivaju „rišćanima“ ili „Vlasima“, kako su do tad sami sebe imenovali, nego da treba da govore da su oni Srbi.
Istu stvar su radili oni koji su katoličkim seljacima govorili da se više ne zovu „kršćani“ nego da govore kako su oni Hrvati.
Uz gore citirano ogroman je obim historijske građe koja pokazuje da su odrednice Srbin i Hrvat na prostoru Bosne bile totalno nepoznate sve do druge polovine XIX vijeka kad su one propagandom, planiranom, finansiranom i na sve moguće načine pomaganom od snaga izvan Bosne, na silu nametnute.
Danas je, na žalost, realnost takva da u Bosni nemamo samo Bošnjake, kako su svi stanovnici Bosne sebe imenovali, nego uz Bošnjake imamo Srbe i Hrvate.

Ponovimo još jedanput: to je realnost i nikad niko više neće moći vratiti stvari unazad. Sam pokušaj vraćanja tih stvari unazad značio bi primjenu nekog novog strahotnog nasilja i zla.
Međutim, nije problem u tome što danas u Bosni imamo, uz Bošnjake i Srbe i Hrvate. Problem je u tome što je u svijesti Srba i Hrvata u Bosni ubijena svijest o tome da su oni BOSANCI I HERCEGOVCI. Pitanje svih pitanje je baš tu a ono glasi: ko će i nakoji način u svijest Srba i Hrvata u Bosni i Hercegovini vratiti svijest o tome da su oni prvo BOSANCI I HERCEGOVCI? A zna se, vidi se i iz gore citiranih historijskih dokumenata, koliko je i na koji način ta njihova svijest, o tome da su oni Bosanci i Hercegovci, mijenjana, bolje reći ubijana.

Ako se ima na umu ono medecinsko prvilo da se bolest liječi onoliko dugo koliko je i trajala ptanje je onda hoće li i za liječenje ove „bosanske bolesti“, kad su u pitanju Srbi i Hrvati u Bosni, važiti ovo isto pravilo?
Iz svega gore napisanog vidljiv je samo jedan od načina kako se pokušavalo a i danas se, nažalost, nastoji da se Bosna razbosni. No, „Bosnom nikad niko nije uspijo vladati, uvjek mu se to samo činilo“ kako je to često isticao prvi predsjednik Bosne i Hercegovine rahmetli Alija Izetbegović.

U stvari, Bosnu nikad niko nije uspio razbosniti pa neće to sigurno uspjeti ni ovim današnjim Bosninim dušmanima. Nije slučajno nastala ona bošnjačka izreka „Izdrž’o je Mujo i gore“. Dodajmo, izdržat će Mujo i ovo. Doći će, bezbeli, vakat u kojem će se Bosna „pobosniti“.
No, dodajmo i to da bi riječ „rasbosniti, razbosniti“ morala naći svoje mijesto u Sistemskom riječniku jezika bosanskoga. Isto kao što su riječi „rashrvaćivati“ , „rashrvatiti“, „pohrvaćivati“, „pohrvatiti se“, „pohrvatiti“, našle svoje mjesto u Rječniku hrvatskoga jezika (V. Anić – Rječnik hrvatskoga jezika, Zagreb, 1994. god. str. 698, 856) ili kao što je riječ „posrbiti“ našla mijesto u rječniku srpskog jezika.

A šta je sa riječju „rasbošnjiti“ kojom su označeni pokušaji da se Bošnjak promijeni i „razbošnjači“. Tema je to posebnog priloga.

Tajna politika Srbije u XIX vijeku(Garasanin)

Skenovi su preuzeti iz knjige Tajna politika Srbije u XIX. stoljecu autor: Damir Agicic, 1994 god.

Izdvajam najvaznije (po meni) skenove.

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/6734/sto1b.jpg

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/4600/sto2.jpg

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/5717/sto3.jpg

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/4449/sto4.jpg

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/8357/sto5.jpg

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/6697/bosanskinarod.jpg

Kovacevic u izvjestaju Garasaninu uopste ne zna za srpski i hrvatski narod vec samo za BOSANSKI.

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4427/42986769.jpg

Toliko o pan-slavizmu i srbima kao pijemontu tog pokreta, ideologija nije nikada podrazumijevala panslavizam nego hegemonisticku fasistoidnu politiku Srbije.

I za kraj zakljucak.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/13/zakljucak1.jpg

Leave a Response »

 

Rescue in Albania story about How Thousands of Jews Were Saved From the Holocaust Utorak, maj 12 2009

A documentary from a Pristina film crew is shedding new light on this little known tale of heroism. Lawrence Marzouk speaks to Dardan Islami, the director of Rescue in Albania.

Locked in the vaults of one of the world’s most secretive regimes for half a century, the incredibly story of how Albanians saved the lives of thousands of Jews during the Holocaust is only today emerging.

From The Diary of Anne Frank to Schindler’s List, the Holocaust has proved fertile ground for Hollywood directors. But the story of how 2,000 Jews were offered safe haven in Albania during the Second World War has so far escaped the attention of Spielberg and his cohorts. Dardan Islami believes his latest documentary, which delves into this fascinating slice of history, could soon pique their interest.

“Nobody had heard about this story because it was closed inside the Communist regime in Albania,” Islami, film director and founder of Prishtina’s Urban FM, told Prishtina Insight.

Rescue in Albania is the result of painstaking research which has taken Islami and his colleagues from the remote Albanian mountains to New York and Tel Aviv, in search of those who were given refuge in Albania and Kosovo.

The documentary, which premiered in Kosovo’s capital last month, tells how Albania was the only country in Europe to emerge from the Second World with a larger Jewish population than before. Islami hopes this will be the first of many screenings across the globe.

Before the Holocaust, just 200 Jews lived in Albania, but the population swelled by 2,000 as the Nazis implemented their policy of mass extermination throughout continental Europe.

According to research by the film team, the London-based Jewish Daily Post reported in July 1935: “It has been a month since the Albanian diplomats in Europe have been implementing the order received from King Zog’s government to issue as many Albanian passports to Jews wanting to go and live in Albania.”

Information from the Albanian national archive in Tirana confirmed that King Zog I invited Jews to Albania in the 1930s to help develop the country. Most obtained Albanian visas and some were even issued Albanian passports.

In 1935, Albert Einstein benefited from Albanian help to transit through Europe to America. He stayed in Durrës on the Albanian coast for three days in the royal mansion and then, equipped with an Albanian passport, continued his journey towards the free world.

During the war, Albania and Kosovo were initially under Italian occupation. The local Albanian government used its authority under a deal with the Italians to refuse to hand over lists of Jews to the German forces.

Jews found shelter in many Albanian households in cities, but when the threat grew too high from the occupying forces’ frequent checkpoints, many escaped to the remote mountains and pretended to be local shepherds. They were provided food and shelter by the local Albanians.

Islami said: “These Albanians had nothing, but they were willing to share their piece of bread with those in need.”

Speaking from Tel Aviv, Felicita Jakoel, whose parents were given safe haven by Albanians during the war, told the documentary makers: “A lady told me a story once. She said: ‘We arrived in Albania with false documents. At the border, they easily realised that, but they let us pass. My father rented a horse and put us kids on its back. After a lot of travelling, we arrived at a village, completely lost.

‘There we rented an old house. One night, we heard a knock at our door. We thought it was the Germans and that they would kill us all. We opened the door and saw an old villager on a donkey. He put down a sack of flour and left without saying a word. That sack of flour saved our lives. This happened to us throughout our whole stay in Albania.’

According to some, besa, the Albanian sworn oath with its duty towards guests, was a key factor in Albanian generosity towards Jews in need.

The Albanian Kanun, the code of conduct, states that the Albanian household belongs both to God and to the guest.

“Besa was the most important factor: the Albanians said that they would rather die before anyone harmed a guest,” Islami explained.

When several hundred Jews from Mitrovica in Kosovo, which was under German rule, were deported to concentration camps in Serbia and later to Austria and Germany, the local authorities started to transfer Jews secretly to remote areas of Albania.

In April 1942, 100 Jewish families left Kosovo for Berat, Albania, and 195 people went to Kavaja, Albania. Others were placed in Kruja, Tirana, Fier, Shijak, Shkodra and elsewhere. Many were employed in shops, manufacturing and agriculture.

In Berat, 38 Albanian families sheltered about 600 Jews arriving from 1942. 350 Jews came from Dalmatia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Macedonia, and 400 from Greece.

Some Jews were provided with identity cards, giving them local Albanian names to hide their true origin from the Italian police and military.

Rakela Kantozi, who now lives in Modi’in, Israel, said: “We escaped from Mitrovica to Prishtina, helped by an Albanian family.

“One guy from Shkodra, Shaqir Boriçi, asked me why I was selling these biscuits every day.

“I told him the truth, that we were not from here and that we were hiding from the Germans. After hearing that, he would help us a lot.

“He let us in his house. We hid in one of the rooms. One of his daughters became a good friend of mine. This lasted until the country was liberated.”

The Italian capitulation in 1943 led to the arrival of German forces, and a more ruthless approach to Jews. But the struggle to rescue them continued.

According to the filmmakers, Hysen Prishtina and Riza Drini, the mayors of Prishtina during the war, did not allow Jews to be handed over to the occupying regime.

They organised the safe passage of hundreds of Jews to Albania. Prenk Uli, the secretary of Pristina district, also helped 52 Jews from Prishtina flee to Albania.

The part Albanians played in protecting Jews has been recognised at Yad Vashem, Israel’s official memorial to the Holocaust. The names of some of the rescuers are engraved there.

“If every country and every nation had done what the Albanians did, the Holocaust may never have happened,” Islami said.

http://balkaninsight.com/en/main/features/18790/

Leave a Response »

 

Bosniak history from the pre-Slavic roots to the modern age Ponedjeljak, maj 4 2009

Bosniaks: Encyclopedia II – Bosniaks – History

Bosniaks – History

Bosniaks – Pre-Slavic roots

The earliest well known inhabitants of the area now known as Bosnia and Herzegovina were the Illyrians. This ancient Indo-European people presumably arrived in the west Balkans around 2000 BC, overrunning the various old European cultures who lived there before them (such as the Butmir Culture in the vicinity of modern Sarajevo). Despite the arrival of the Celts in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE, the Illyrians remained the dominant group in the west Balkans until the arrival of the Romans.

Rome conquered Illyria after a series of wars, the final being the crushing of a rebellion by certain tribes in what is now central Bosnia around 9 CE. Latin-speaking settlers from all over the empire settled among the Illyrians at this time. The Roman province of Dalmatia included Herzegovina and most of Bosnia, and a strip of northern Bosnia, south of the Sava River, was part of the province of Pannonia. The Vlachs, a historically nomadic people who live throughout the Balkans, speak a language derived from Latin, and are thought to be the descendants of Roman settlers and Romanized indigenous peoples. No longer present in a large number, they were absorbed into Bosnia’s three main ethnic groups based on religion during the Ottoman period.

It should be noted that Bosniaks, unlike other people whose land is named after an ancient ethnic name, derive their name from Bosnia (similar to Italians and Spaniards). The most commonly accepted theory regarding the origins of the name Bosnia is that it comes from the river Bosna, which has had a similar name since ancient times. That word itself is of either Latin or Illyrian origin.

The Goths conquered Roman Dalmatia in the fifth century, and later the Alans, who spoke an Iranian language, and the Turkic Huns and Avars passed through what is now Bosnia. These invaders left few linguistic traces, and whatever remnant populations were left behind were absorbed by the Slavic wave that was to follow.

In 2005 various South European medical schools and institutions specializing in genetics did an analysis of the variation at 28 Y-chromosome biaUelic markers among a sample of males from throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina, relatively equally split among all three major ethnic groups. The most notable find was the high frequency of the “Paleolithic European” halo group (Hg) I; specifically its sub-halo group I-P37. Indicative of Dinarics, the sub-halo group had a frequency of 71% among Bosnian Croats, 44% among Bosniaks, and 31% among Bosnian Serbs. A similar study in Croatia found that Croatian Croats had a frequency of about 45%, but that among them Croats in Dalmatia had a particularly high frequency (around two thirds).

The high frequency of I-P37 among Croats in Bosnia and Dalmatia can be explained by the fact that Catholics in those regions historically mixed very little with other people. The smaller frequency among Croats in Croatia and Bosniaks is probably due to the various foreigners that were assimilated over the years. The study mentioned above confirmed that the Bosniak gene pool was impacted by foreigners from various regions in the Ottoman Empire more so than that of the other two groups, but not in a significant amount overall.

It must be taken into account that out of the study’s Bosniak subjects none came from Bosanska Krajina. Based on historical factors associated with the region, it could be expected that the inclusion of Bosniak subjects from this regions would have raised the frequency of I-P37 and Slav-associated sub-halo groups while lowering the frequency of Mediterranean related sub-halo groups among Bosniaks overall. Future genetic studies will hopefully shed more light on these issues. As it stands, current studies have shown that, genetically, Bosniaks are largely indigenous and have a large fraction of the ancient gene pool distinctive for the Balkan area.

Bosniaks – Medieval Bosnia

Slavs settled in Bosnia, Herzegovina, and the surrounding lands, which were then part of the Eastern Roman Empire, in the seventh century. The Slavic Serbs and Croats settled sometime after the first wave of Slavs. The Croats established a kingdom in what is now central Croatia and northwestern Bosnia. The Serbs settled in what is now central Serbia, and later expanding into the upper Drina valley of eastern Bosnia and into Eastern Herzegovina, known in the later Middle Ages as Zahumlje. The Croats to the west came under the influence of the Germanic Carolingian Empire and the Roman Catholic Church, and Croatia was closely tied to Hungary and later Austria until the twentieth century. The Serbs to the east came under periodic Byzantine rule, converted to Eastern Orthodox Christianity and absorbed Byzantine cultural influences. After some centuries of rule by Croatia, Serb principalities, and the Byzantine Empire, an independent Bosnian kingdom flourished in central Bosnia between the twelfth and the fifteenth centuries.

The subject of ethnicity in medieval Bosnia has been one of great debate ever since it was brought up in its current context by historians during the second half of the 19th century. All three ethnic groups in Bosnia have a different view on the matter, and this complex and sensitive subject has been further obscured by nationalism and propaganda through the ages. Proving their people as the true heirs of the medieval Bosnian state is important to many nationalists because they consider this indigenousness to have important implications in modern social, political, and interethnic issues. Simply put, however, there is no sign that the population of pre-Ottoman Bosnia and Herzegovina, in whichever social stratum, had developed Croatian or Serbian ethnic consciousness even in a medieval sense of the word. To quote Noel Malcolm from the book “Bosnia A Short History”:

“As for the question of whether the inhabitants of Bosnia were really Croat or really Serb in 1180, it cannot be answered, for two reasons: first, because we lack evidence, and secondly, because the question lacks meaning. We can say that the majority of the Bosnian territory was probably occupied by Croats – or at least, by Slavs under Croat rule – in the seventh century; but that is a tribal label which has little or no meaning five centuries later. The Bosnians were generally closer to the Croats in their religious and political history; but to apply the modern notion of Croat identity (something constructed in recent centuries out of religion, history, and language) to anyone in this period would be an anachronism. All that one can sensibly say about the ethnic identity of the Bosnians is this: they were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia.”

The Bosnian Kingdom blended cultural influences from east and west; although nominally Roman Catholic, the Bosnian kings embraced elements of Byzantine culture and court ceremonial, and formed alliances and dynastic marriages with the neighboring rulers of both Croatian-Dalmatian and Serb states. Because of Bosnia’s mountainous and inaccessible terrain and its remote location on the borderland between the Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, control by church authorities was weak. The religious situation was also peculiar because of the presence of an indigenous Bosnian Church (its adherents were known as krštjani, “Christians”). The krštjani were considered heretics by both the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Modern historians have debated whether the Krštjani were a branch of the Bogomils, a Manichean sect which originated in Bulgaria, or whether they were members of the Catholic Church who had acquired some heretical beliefs and influences from Eastern Orthodoxy and fell into Schism.

At its largest extent, under King Tvrtko Kotromanic, the Bosnian Kingdom included most of present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the exception of north-western Bosnia, as well as parts of Dalmatia and western Serbia. Discord among his heirs weakened the kingdom after his death, and Bosnia and the Serb principalities to the east were unable to prevent Ottoman Turkish incursions into the western Balkans. The final Turkish conquest in 1463 marked the end of an independent Bosnia and the beginning of the influence of a third civilization, Islam.

Bosniaks – Ottoman rule

Historians have long debated how and why the Slav population in Bosnia converted in such large numbers to Islam. There is no simple answer to this question, and the underlying reasons are complex and numerous. One important fact is that the Ottomans did not, as a rule, actively seek to convert their Christian subjects to Islam (the many generations it took for Bosnia to become predominantly Muslim and the retaining of Slavic customs among converts testify to this). The Ottoman Empire at the time was centered on militaristic expansion independent of religion, and the primary split was not between Muslims and nonbelievers but between the military-administrative class (the Ottomans) and the raya, neither of which was exclusive to any particular faith. Though the state eventually acquired a more Islamic focus, by the time this happened Muslims already made up a large majority of Bosnia’s population.

The Ottoman conquest of Bosnia was notable because, unlike all other European regions that came under Ottoman control, Bosnia retained its status as a distinct entity from the very beginning (first as a Sanjak, then as a pashaluk). The Ottomans imported their feudal system to Bosnia shortly after the take-over, and estates were granted to men, called spahis, in return for military service in times of war. At the beginning of the Ottoman period, these estates were usually, but not exclusively, granted to Muslims, and later only to Muslims. In Bosnia, these land grants gradually became hereditary, and by the end of the Ottoman period, a majority of the landowners in Bosnia were Muslims, and most Christians were peasants or serfs (raya).

Probably the biggest reason behind the spread of Islam in the region was the very weak presence of the Church in Bosnia at the time. The old competition between the Catholic and Bosnian churches (along with the Orthodox Church in certain areas) contributed to a very weak and disorganized religious structure in much of Bosnia. To many Bosnians religion was a combination of traditions and superstitions. Compared to the well-funded and organized religious institutions of their neighbors, it was relatively easy for Bosnians to switch from their folk-Christianity to Islam. It is significant that the only other European region under Ottoman control where a large segment of the population adopted Islam was Albania; also home to competing Christian sects.

Also important was the growth of urban centers, the vast majority of which were Muslim. Cities that were founded at the time, such as Sarajevo and Mostar, grew rapidly with a specifically Islamic character and advanced living standards. It is understandable that many Christians in the outlying rural regions would convert to Islam to be part of the superior conditions in such places. Further, slaves who converted to Islam could petition for their freedom, and many of the Christians enslaved during the wars with Austria, Hungary, and Venice converted to Islam in order to secure their release. Many of these newly-freed converts settled in the growing cities, further contributing to their growth and development.

It is thought that the greater rights afforded to Muslims in the Ottoman Empire motivated Christians to convert to Islam. However, the extent to which Muslims were privileged is often overestimated. The primary discrimination faced by non-Muslims was of a legal nature, as Christians and Jews were not allowed to file lawsuits or testify against Muslims in court. There were also rules of conduct imposed upon them, but there were many to whom these rules did not apply. Though much has been made of the fact that Christian and Jewish subjects of the Sultan paid a ‘poll tax’ from which Muslims were exempt, Muslims were also faced with the religious zekjat tax, whereas Catholics made donations to their church only on a voluntary basis.

Many Christians became Muslims through the devsirme system, whereby boys were gathered from the Ottoman lands and were sent to Istanbul to convert to Islam and be trained as Janissary troops, servants of the Sultan or Ottoman officials. One observer in the 16th century even mentioned that the Sultan believed Bosniaks were “the best, most pious and most loyal people” and “much bigger, more handsome, and more able” than other Muslim peoples. Though the devsirme system probably didn’t influence the demographics of Bosnia significantly, it did firmly establish the Slavic element and language in Istanbul’s administration and provided Bosnia with local Bosniak governors from 1488 onward.

The 17th century brought major defeats and military setbacks on the Ottoman Empire’s western frontier. With major wars occurring every few decades, Bosnia was economically and militarily exhausted. For Bosnia and Bosniaks, the most critical conflict of all was the Great Turkish War. At its very start n the mid 1680s, the Austrians conquered nearly all of Ottoman Hungary, sending tens of thousands of Muslim refugees flooding into Bosnia. A similar process occurred with the Austrian conquest of Lika and Slavonia. Thousands of Muslims from these parts fled eastward into the Bosnian pashaluk, while those who remained were forcibly converted to Catholicism. In total, it is estimated that more than 100,000 Muslims were expelled from the frontier regions and settled in Bosnia during this time. Many brought with them a new sense of hostility towards Christianity.

Ottoman military disasters continued into the next decade. In 1697, Prince Eugene of Savoy conducted an extremely successful border raid which culminated in Sarajevo being put to the torch. The Great Turkish War was finally ended by the Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699. However, in the late 1710s yet another war between the Ottomans and the Austro-Venitian alliance ensued. It was ended by the Treaty of Passarowitz in 1718, but not before sending another wave of Muslim refugees fleeing to Bosnia proper.

These events created great unrest among Bosniaks. The sentiment of discontent was further magnified by war and an increased tax burden. As a result, Bosniak revolts sprang up in Herzegovina in 1727, 1728, 1729, and 1732. A large plague that resulted in the death of thousands during the early 1730s contributed to the general chaos. In 1736, seeking to exploit these conditions, Austria broke the Treat of Passarowitz and crossed the Sava river boundary. In one of the most significant events in Bosniak history, local Bosniak nobility organized a defense and counterattack completely independent of the ineffective imperial authorities. On August 4, at the Battle of Banja Luka, the outnumbered Bosniak forces routed the Austrian army and sent them fleeing back to Slavonia.

Traditionally, the Turkish authorities classed subjects of the Empire not by nationality, but by religion. During the nineteenth century, modern national consciousness began to increase among the south Slavs; some historians now believe that it was in this period that Catholic Bosnians increasingly began to think of themselves as Croats, and Orthodox Bosnians as Serbs. The beginnings of a Muslim Bosnian national consciousness is also first attested in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as these early Bosniak nationalists began to assert a national identity distinct from both their Orthodox and Catholic neighbors, and from the other Muslim inhabitants of the empire. Most Serb and Croat nationalists tend to deny a separate Bosniak national identity, claiming that Bosniaks were either Serb or Croat in origin, but of Islamic religion. This debate, whether Bosnia and the Bosniaks are “really” Croats, Serbs, or a separate Bosniak Bosnian nation, has energized debates among nationalists until the present day. Anthropologists find the nationalist statements on Serbian/Croatian origin rather irrational and ultimately undignified attention, since, with a few notable exceptions, the ethnicity and history of the dominated in communist Yugoslavia has been prescribed by the dominators and by the general demographics of a region.

Like national identity in Bosnia and Herzegovina in general, Bosniak national identity is chiefly based on religion and communal feeling, as opposed to linguistic and/or physical differences from their neighbors. In that sense, the earliest foundation of modern Bosniak national development can be found as early as the beginning of the 18th century, as native Bosnian Muslims found themselves often fighting against the empire’s enemies by their own (i.e. the Battle of Banja Luka, where the city’s garrison was composed entirely of Bosniaks). On top of present cultural uniqueness, by the first half of the 19th century upper class Bosniaks and intellectuals were already propagating what can be considered early Bosniak nationalism, by way of writing and politics, all of which would later lead to the Bosniak rebirth at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century.

Bosniaks – Austro-Hungarian rule and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia

Bosnia and Herzegovina were occupied and administered by Austria-Hungary in 1878, and a number of Bosniaks left Bosnia and Herzegovina. Official Austro-Hungarian records show that 56,000 people mostly Bosniaks emigrated between 1883 and 1920, but the number of Bosniak emigrants is probably much larger, as the official record doesn’t reflect emigration before 1883, nor include those who left without permits. Most of the emigrants probably fled in fear of retribution after the intercommunal violence of the 1875-1878 uprising. Many Serbs from Herzegovina left for America during the same period. One geographer estimates that there are 350,000 “Bosniaks” in Turkey today, although that figure includes the descendants of Muslim South Slavs who emigrated from the Sandžak region during the First Balkan War and later. Another wave of Bosniak emigration occurred after the end of the First World War, when Bosnia and Herzegovina became part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, known after 1929 as Yugoslavia.

Urban Bosniaks were particularly proud of their cosmopolitan culture, especially in the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo, which was, until WWII, home to thriving Bosniak, Serb, Croat, and Jewish communities. After 1945, Sarajevo became one of the most ethnically mixed cities in the former Yugoslavia.

Bosniaks – The struggle for recognition

Members of the 19th century Illyrian movement, most notably Ivan Frano Jukić, emphasized Bosniaks (Bošnjaci) alongside Serbs and Croats as one of the “tribes” that constitutes the “Illyrian nation”.

With the dawn of Illyrian movement, Muslim intelligentsia gathered around magazine Bosnia in the 1860s promoted the idea of a Bosniak nation. A member of this group was father of Savfet-beg Bašagić, a famous Bosniak poet. The Bosniak group would remain active for several decades, with the continuity of ideas and the use of the archaic Bosniak name. From 1891 until 1910 they published a magazine titled Bosniak. By the turn of centuries, however, this group has all but died out, due to its most prominent members either dying or deciding for Croat identity, the latter including Savfet-beg Bašagić himself.

The administration of Benjamin Kallay, the Austria-Hungarian governor of Bosnia and Herzegovina, enforced the idea of a unitary Bosnian nation (Bosanci) that would include the Catholic and Orthodox Bosnians as well as Muslims. The idea was fiercely opposed by Croats and Serbs, but also by a number of Muslims. This policy further clouded the Bosnian ethnical issue and made the Bosniak group seem as pro-regime. After Kallays death in 1903, the official policy slowly drifted towards accepting the three-ethnical reality of Bosnia.

Muslim National Organization (MNO), a political party founded in 1906, was a major opponent of the regime and promoted the idea of Muslims as a separate entity from Serbs and Croats. A group of dissidents that, among else, subscribed with the Croat Muslim identity formed a party named Muslim Proggressive Party (MNS), however it received little popular support and faded away in the next few years.

The first constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1910 explicitly mentioned Serbs, Croats and Muslims as the “native peoples”. This was reflected in the elections held soon thereafter, when the electoral was divided into a Serb, Croat and Muslim ballot. MNO, Serb National Organization (SNO) and Croat National Community (HNZ) received almost unanimous support in their respective ballots, and their members formed the parliament, albeit this parliament had little power in the Austria-Hungarian province of Bosnia and Herzegovina. All translations of the Constitution into native languages used lower-case M for Muslims as followers of Islam (This is because the proper nouns such as Muslim and Christian were and still are written in lowercase letters in Bosnian (Serbo-Croatian) language).

After the World War I, Bosnia and Herzegovina became part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes which later transformed into the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The Serb monarchy, being one of the victors of the World War, sought Croat and Slovene political parties as their partners when forming the country. MNO, reformed into the Yugoslav Muslim Organization (JMO), dropped the pursuit of Muslim national identity and focused on protecting the religious and existential issues of Muslims through coalescing with other parties, sometimes even with the Serbian parties such as Nikola Pašić’s People’s Radical Party and Milan Stojadinović’s Serbian Radical Party.

In the 1921 census, only Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were recognized as native nations or “tribes”, and these were the only available options for ethnicity. The result was that a large number of Bosniaks simply left the field for ethnicity blank. This phenomenon, labeled nonethnical element (nenarodni element), was a topic of heated debate amongst scholars and politicians for years to follow. Some of them argued that the nonethnical element were descendants of the Turkish occupier and as such should be expelled. Nevertheless, thanks to the helpful influence of JMO, there were only isolated incidents of oppression against Bosniaks.

This political void was quickly filled with a number of opposition parties which recognized Muslims as a separate nation. Among them was the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, as a document from the 1930s reveals. It’s no coincidence that a large number of Bosnian Muslims joined the Communist Party, and later the partisans, many of them becaming prominent political leaders and commandants.

During the World War II, the authorities of the Nazi-puppet Independent State of Croatia tried to ally with the Bosniaks whom they considered to be “Muslim Croats” against the Serbs and other “undesirables”. As a token, the Artists Gallery museum (by Ivan Mestrovic) in Zagreb was furnished with minarets and ceded to be used as a mosque.

The Declaration of the State Anti-Fascist Council of National Liberation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ZAVNOBiH), issued on November 25th of 1943 by the partisan government, is widely considered to be the constitutional basis of the modern Bosnia and Herzegovina. This document uses essentially the same wording as the 1910 Constitution. Furthermore, the Resolution of ZAVNOBiH states: “Today, the nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina, through their only political representative – the ZAVNOBiH, desire that their country, which is neither Serb, nor Croat nor Muslim, but Serb as well as Croat and Muslim, should be the free and united Bosnia and Herzegovina in which the full equality, legal and otherwise, of Serbs, Muslims and Croats will be guaranteed”.

Unfortunately, this declaration was broken as soon as World War II was over, as the Constitution of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia (later Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) mentioned Serbs and Croats, but not Muslims, as the native nations (narodi). In the Yugoslav census of 1948, 90% of Muslims in Yugoslavia declared themselves as “nationally undetermined”. Furthermore, many who registered as Serbs or Croats did so largely out of societal and economic pressure. When the “Yugoslav, nationally undeclared” option became available in 1953, 900,000 people registered as such.

With a weakening of Serb dominance in Bosnian communist leadership, the door opened up for a new national identification. Finally in the 1961 Yugoslav census, the “Muslims in the ethnic sense” option first appeared. By 1963 Muslims were listed in the Bosnian constitution alongside Serbs and Croats. Finally, in 1968, “Muslims” with a capital M was adopted as the term for a member of a nation rather than “muslims” as adherents to Islam. (This summons forth the old discussions about whether a Jew is a member of a tribe or of a religion; the dilemmas were parallel).

The decision wasn’t greeted without debate among communist leadership, but Bosniaks had made themselves clear. “Practice has shown the harm of different forms of pressure,” read a communique issued by the Bosnian Central Committee, “from the earlier period when Muslims were designated as Serbs or Croats from the national viewpoint. It has been shown, and present socialist practice confirms, that the Muslims are a distinct nation”.

From then until the Yugoslav wars, Bosniak national identity continued to develop with two different philosophies forming. These breakthroughs in the 60s were not carried out by religious Muslims (in fact, they were headed chiefly by secular Muslim communists) but in the following decades two separate schools of thought emerged. The first, was a secular “Muslim Nationalism”, and the second was a separate revival of Islamic religious belief (a reaction to communist sponsored secularism and advocated by people such as Alija Izetbegović). The effects of these two separate ideas on what exactly Bosnian Muslims are can be seen to this day.

In September 1993, the Congress of Bosnian Muslim Intellectuals adopted the term Bosniak instead of the previously used Muslim. Other nationalities objected to the name as a ploy to monopolize the history of Bosnia and make them seem to be foreign invaders (see History of Bosnia and Herzegovina). The term in itself means Bosnian and is an archaic term that was once used for all inhabitants of Bosnia regardless of faith. Bosniaks counter by pointing out that Bosniak has been a historical ethnic term for their nation since the 19th century, and that had they truly wanted to “monopolize” Bosnian history it would have been far easier to adopt the name “Bosnian” in itself instead of using the more archaic version.

Since the 1990s, the name has been adopted outside of Bosnia itself, onto the Slavic Muslim population of other former Yugoslav republics such as Serbia and Macedonia. It allows a Bosniak/Bosnian distinction to match the Serb/Serbian and Croat/Croatian distinctions between ethnicity and residence.
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Bosniaks_-_History/id/618993

Leave a Response »

 

“Bosnian Royal Genealogy” – Zlatko Lukić Četvrtak, feb 26 2009

“Bosnian Royal Genealogy” – Zlatko Lukić
23. 02. 2009, Multimedia Center MAK – Sarajevo Library, Alipašina 6a, at 5:00 PM

There have existed only geographical and historical atlases until now. Henceforth, for the very first time in the world, there exists the atlas of genealogical maps, as well. It will soon appear the genealogical atlas, where are graphically and in an easy-to-survey manner represented all the Kotromanićs, Bosnian high nobility and genealogical maps of all the royal dynasties which had a great impact on civilisation development of B&H, such as: Byzantine, Turkey, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Austro-Hungaria, Russia and others.

In the textual part of the book is given the concise history of B&H with the relevant data and biographies of all the Bosnian rulers and nobility. The Atlas consists of 120 genealogical maps, 7 lists and 2 parallel tables with all the family and marital relationships between Bosnian, but also other dynasties that had an influence on B&H.

This is a book that each library, school and faculty should have. It is a lavishly produced monograph of high quality of print and paper in limited edition. All the copies are numerated and each book is signed by author himself.

Leave a Response »

 

Karte bosanskih rodoslovnih stabala by Zlatko Lukic + Kotromanici Četvrtak, feb 26 2009

http://picasaweb.google.com/aurelius777/KarteBosanskihRodoslovnihStabala#5304874328814682722

Prošlost Bosne u “Bosanskoj dinastiji Kotromanića”

Mostar, sa promocije knjige “Bosanska dinastija Kotromanića”, Foto: Tina Jelin

19.04.2008

Tina Jelin

Iako se o Bosni govorilo od Kulina bana i 12 stoljeća, podaci do kojih je došao autor porodičnog stabla „Bosanska dinastija Kotromanića”, pokazuje da spomen jednom bosanskom vladaru datira još od 968 godine. Porodično stablo dinastije Kotromanića je jedinstveno djelo, autora dr Envera Imamovića, koje na jednom mjestu slikovno i tekstualno prikazuje prošlost Bosne od skoro 700 godina.

Porodično stablo “Bosanska dinastija Kotromanića” lična je karta Bosne, umjetničko djelo, slika hrasta sa članovima dinastije Kotromanića koji su više od 700 godina vladali srednjovjekovnom bosanskom državom ili, kako naglašava autor prof. dr. Enver Imamović, svjedočenje da je bosanska država jedna od najstarijih država Slavena:

“Dakle, od 968. godine do 1304. godine to je 200 godina. A od Kulina Bana do zadnjega izdanka dinastije Kotromanića, do zadnjega kralja je sljedećih 500 godina - 700 godina postojanja Bosne, evidentirano, dokumentirano. A od prvoga spominjanja bana do danas je 1200 godina. Toliko je vaša Bosna.”

Iz izvedene geneze vidljivo je da je Bosna bila samostalna država, sa vlastitim vladarima, dvorom, jakom diplomatskom službom, vojskom, vlastiti novacem.

Posebno se izdvajaju periodi Kulina Bana, kada je nastala Povelja dubrovačkim trgovcima koja se označava i kao rodni list srednovjekovne bosanske državnosti, ali i vladavina Stjepana II Kotromanića kada je Bosni pripojen Hum, današanja Hercegovina, te oblasti Livanjskog, Duvanjskog i Glamočkog polja, čime su granice Bosne dovedene do tri rijeke – Save, Drine i Cetine.

Istaknuti bh. intelektualac fra Luka Markešić podsjetio je na različite duhovne tokove, vjerski pluralizam kojeg su podržavali Kotromanići, što je srednjovjekovoj Bosni dalo pečat izuzetnosti:

„Katolička crkva sa središtem i Rimu, Pravoslavna crkva sa središtem u Carigradu i Crkva bosanska sa središtem u Bosni - i Kotromanići su nastojali sa svakom od ovih crkava izgraditi dobri odnos. Možda u ovakvom stavu vidjeti i razlog lakšega prihvaćanja islama, kao sada četvrte vjerske zajednice.“

Porodično stablo Kotromanića, Foto: Tina Jelin

Iako je Austro-Ugarska zaslužna za razvoj institucija poput Instituta za istraživanje Balkanskog poluostrva, Geološkog instituta, Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu, ona nije bila zainteresirana za istraživanje nacionalne historije koja se odnosi na život države Bosne i Hercegovine. U vrijeme Kraljevine Jugoslavije Bosna je podijeljana na četiri banovine, a nakon proglašenja NDH postaje dijelom hrvatske teritorije. Iako se za vrijeme socijalističke Jugoslavije obnavlja Bosna i Hercegovina, svi znaci nekadašnje državnosti su reducirani.

Krvna loza bosanske dinastije zato predstavlja i svojevrsnu obnovu pamćenja o vladarskim ličnostima značajnog perioda povijesti Bosne, a za akademika Muhameda Filipovića, i obnovu zajedničkog identiteta kojeg različiti nacionalizmi i danas pokušavaju osporiti:

„200 godina je u našim ljudima ubijano osjećanje ponosa da su imali svoju zemlju, da su imali svoju državu, da su imali svoje plemstvo, da su imali svoje banove i kraljeve, da su imali ljude koji su ih na dostojan način reprezentirali i u državnoj i u vojnoj i u duhovnoj sferi, u umjetničkoj sferi i u kojoj god hoćete.“

Razvoj državnosti BiH na početku 21. stoljeća, njen put u evropsku porodicu, zaključuje i prof. Mirko Pejanović, nemoguće je posmatrati bez istine o povijesnom razvoju srednjovjekovne bosanske države koja je bila priznata na evropskim dvorima. Pejanović dodaje i kako porodično stablo dinastije Kotromanić može biti i svojevrsna prekratnica u obrazovanju generacija koje dolaze:

„Porodično stablo dinastije Kotromanića imaće važno mjesto u edukaciji srednjoškolske i studentske populacije, pa i šire – u edukaciji građana, i treba naći svoje mjesto u svim školama i vaspitno-obrazovnim institucijama.“

Na način dopadljiv i razumljiv za djecu, intelektualce, akademike, na stablu je prikazano 14 vladara. Njihovi likovi skinuti su sa autentičnih, postojećih dokumenata, dok se u tekstu navodi 70 članova dinastije Kotromanić.

http://www.slobodnaevropa.org/content/Article/1107404.html

Leave a Response »

 

Nauka i kupusarija Dusanovo Carstvo – koji Dusan i koje Carstvo? Ponedjeljak, feb 2 2009

Nauka i kupusarija

(Obrazovanje: Borba protiv pseudohistorije, Dani 606, 23. 1. 2009, 42 – 45)

Iz pera uglednog Vuka Bačanovića, Dani u 606. broju donose prigodan prikaz knjige Historijska čitanka CDRSEE, Sarajevo, 2007., obima oko 500 strana (HČ). Bačanović, i pored dobrih konstatacija, nažalost, pravi grešku zloupotrebe naučnog metoda i slično. On nije vidio da su autori HČ, zbog akcidencije (isticanje nečega kao bitnog, a ne mora biti tako), spomenuti rad objavili čak i pod neprikladnim nazivom, što je spomenuti kritičar morao da primijeti.

Imenica “čitanka” se pravilno koristi samo za hrestomatski odabrane književne radove, pa je nelogično taj leksem “nakalemiti” i na kompilaciju (napabirčenih) arhivskih dokumenata. Jer, nema dokaza da su ti tekstovi odabrani među milion sličnih dokumenata, po nekom znanstvenom kriteriju. Eto zašto se ne može kazati da su pokazani dokumenti pravi reprezentanti povijesne istine. Marx je govorio da nauka postaje istinita tek kad “uspije da se izrazi na matematički način”, a ne i na poluistinit način, što se nudi sa subjektivno odabranim dokumentima HČ. Sve druge i drugačije teorije, Engels je nazivao “kupusarija“!

U prvom dijelu spomenutog rada, recimo, obrazlaže se kako je Osmansko Carstvo, krajem XIV i početkom XV stoljeća, osvojilo Balkansko poluostrvo. U pitanju je pogrešan navod. Jer, spomenuta se sintagma literarno koristi tek u XVIII stoljeću. Osmanlije su, ustvari, željele da obnove Vizantijsko carstvo, pa su radi tih planova, krajem XIV stoljeća pokorile Bugarsku, zatim, među despotima podijeljenu državu Rašku itd., a ne Balkansko poluostrvo, kako se tvrdi u HČ. Bačanović u spomenutom tekstu sasvim nekorektno spominje i “kraljeve Srbije”, što ne odgovara materijalnoj istini. Jer, Svištovskim mirovnim ugovorom iz 1791. godine, Smederevski sandžak (Beogradski pašaluk) je prvi put nazvan Srbija (Vojna enciklopedija – Beograd, 555/1). A Konstantin Jireček je davno obznanio da knezovi nomadske države Raške nisu mogli dobiti, valjda, zbog nomadskog statusa vladarske krune (Istorija Srba, Zmaj, Zemun, 1990., 169, 222). Radi toga je Sv. Sava, 1217. godine, i to kad nije bio arhiepiskop tzv. Srpske pravoslavne crkve (koju nije priznavala Pravoslavna crkva iz Carigrada), krunisao za kralja Raške, koga drugog nego svog brata Stefana. Navedena se država (gdje su živjeli Srbi, Iliri, Tračani, Bugari, Grci itd.) pogrešno u srpskoj literaturi sada poistovjećuje sa Srbijom.

Spomenutu, dakle, lokalnu kraljevsku krunu je nosio i Stefan Uroš IV, realno, veliki župan Raške (1331-1355), kojem srpski povjesničari (iz milja) daju ime Dušan (Jireček, 212), a nisu imali pravo da krste ljude. Koliko je tzv. Dušan bio vlastoljubiv, pokazuje i činjenica da se uz pomoć tzv. SPC, 16. aprila 1346. godine, proglasio čak za “cara Grkljem i Srbljem”! Ali, navedenu carsku krunu, što srpski povjesničari prešućuju, anatemisala je Vizantija (Jireček, 223), gdje se nalazilo vrhovno sjedište Pravoslavne crkve. Prema konfesionalnom dogovoru još iz 459., Pravoslavna crkva u Carigradu je mogla davati carske, a katolička crkva iz Vatikana kraljevske krune (R. Lopez, Rađanje Evrope, Zagreb, 1978., 48). Kako ondašnja Srpska pravoslavna crkva nije bila patarenska (otpadnička), ona je ta pravila morala poštovati.

U drugom dijelu HČ se govori o nacijama i državama jugoistočne Evrope, što je dobro. Ali nije dobro što se propušta kazati da je u Bosni “stvorena politička vlast prije hrvatske i srpske”. O tome je davno pisala Nada Klaić, ugledna povjesničarka, pa taj važan navod za BiH nije trebalo ignorirati ni u HČ. Treći dio HČ je posvećen temi tzv. balkanskih ratova, gdje se ističu sasvim pogrešni navodi, a objektivni dokumenti zanemaruju. Evo i kako. Po scenariju tajnog ugovora (zaključenog 15. januara 1877. godine) između Austro-Ugarske, Rusije i Srbije, tvrdi Grgur Jakšić (Iz novije srpske istorije, Prosveta – Beograd, 1953., 61) planirana je podjela vilajeta Bosne. U navedenom aktu piše, kakva drskost, kako Austro-Ugarska daje suglasnost Rusiji da može anektirati neke teritorije na Kavkazu, a Rusija se suglasila da Austro-Ugarska anektira Bosnu i Hercegovinu, “izuzimajući zemljište koje se nalazi između Srbije i Crne Gore o kome će se obe vlade imati da dogovore kad bude došao trenutak da njime mogu raspolagati”. Epilog prethodnog ugovora je već poznat, pa dalji komentar nije potreban.

U četvrtom dijelu HČ se opravdano polemizira o Drugom svjetskom ratu, gdje se objektivno govori i o fašizmu, a nešto manje loše o boljševizmu. Ali, nigdje se ne kaže i kolika je bila ratna šteta Bosne i Hercegovine, mada je na osnovu popisa utvrđeno da je ona iznosila oko 6 milijardi dolara (Arhiva BiH, Fond Zemaljska komisija za ratnu štetu, 1945. – 1950.). Navedeni iznos ratne štete, najvećim je dijelom kompenziran za ratnu štetu partizana nad Nijemcima Vojvodine, jasno piše Nikola Živković (Ratna šteta koju je Njemačka učinila Jugoslaviji u Drugom svjetskom ratu, Institut za savremenu istoriju Beograd, 1975.). Ni spomenuti dokument, makar se radilo o krunskom aktu, nije u mnogo hvaljenoj HČ objavljen. Što li?!

Ako se rezimiraju prethodni redovi ovog komentara, jasno se može zaključiti da je Bačanovićev spomenuti članak (ne)korektan prikaz Historijske čitanke CDRSEE. Istina, prethodna ocjena, zbog složenosti teme, može biti i stvar subjektivnog shvaćanja. Bilo kako bilo, potpisnik ovih redova je iznio svoj stav, bez obzira na druga i drugačija mišljenja.

Leave a Response »