Talk:Serbia

This page is still incoherent despite my last edit. Go back to the page history. Some of the old content should be restored. --Jiang 07:30, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Most of the old content seems to be moved to History of Serbia. Nikola 15:18, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Contents

1 "Serbia proper" 2 UZA or CENTRALNA; CENTRAL OR PROPER 3 More about "Serbia proper" 4 The motto 5 7th-14th century 6 14th-19th century 7 Modern Serbia 8 Kingdom of Yugoslavia 9 Flag change? 10 constitutional language 11 Crown Prince 12 Formal name 13 history section 14 Ice Cream? 15 Ethnicities 16 Djindjic 17 Constitution from 1974

"Serbia proper"

Avala, I gather from your comment ("VANDALISM! what is serbia proper? stop writing that!)" that you don't like the use of the term "Serbia proper". It is a common term in English (Google returns 9,560 results for it). I've noted its use in English in what I hope you consider an acceptable fashion. -- ChrisO 14:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well it is confusing, I for one agree with Avala, Serbia proper is improper. Kosovo and Vojvodina are both part of Serbia proper. --Igor

I hate to join this argument, but 212.62.63.172's last edit was very unprofessional, and I felt as if I should provide some explanation for my revert. Please refer to the Library of Congress' Yugoslavia glossary (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/yugoslavia/yu_glos.html), which gives the definition of Serbia proper as "The part of the Republic of Serbia not including the provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo; the ethnic and political core of the Serbian state." 212.62.63.172, unless you can provide a good argument against the term Serbia proper, I think it is a well-established term in the English language, whether it should be or not, and therefore deserves mention. Please voice your arguments on this talk page, so we can reach a consensus instead of engaging in an edit war. —Bkell 20:04, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agree that it is a common term outside of Serbia, but it should also be noted that the term is controversial within Serbia, since it implies that the other parts are not 'properly' part of Serbia. There are political connotations with its use. Can we use it, but note that it is a loaded term? Mark Richards 17:39, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

ok this term is not disliked it is not controversial it is just not used in Serbia, it is totally unknown. it is probably mistranslated to English. Maybe there is some completely different name for serbia proper in serbian like central serbia or something else which was really badly translated years ago and now that phrase stayed (Hey why Serbians still call Wienna - Bech? Because it is a human habit).You really can not find much pages on serbian that say serbian proper. But ok i think that article like it is now is perfectly all right.

i found some info that "proper" is just Raska region but not whole central Serbia(central serbia is the name used in books and everywhere)

The another example of name confusion is Republic of Serbia(Republika Srbija) and Serbian Republic(Republika Srpska). First one is normal Serbia and second one is part of Bosnia.

One should probably note the existence of the term uža Srbija (literally "narrower Serbia") as it was used during SFRY and probably still is, and it's probably more sympathetic to the nationalist cause. "Serbia proper" does certainly seem to be the common English usage. --Shallot 21:09, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The use of "proper" in this context has the following meaning, according to my Chambers' dictionary: "used immediately after a noun: strictly so called; itself, excluding others not immediately connected with it. We are now entering the city proper." Used in reference to Serbia, it has the meaning given by the Library of Congress definition quoted above: "The part of the Republic of Serbia not including the provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo." That is what "Serbia proper" means in English, nothing more. It's like saying "France proper" to distinguish European France from the Republic of France, which includes various non-European territories. -- ChrisO 22:27, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit irritated by certain non-native speakers of English presuming to know my own language better than I do. "Serbia proper" has no political meaning - it's purely a geographical term. Is that clear now? -- ChrisO 22:56, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just as I am getting irritated by certain non-native Serbians who presume to know my own country better than I do. I keep removing Serbia proper from the section about political subdivisions simply because it is not a subdivision. The text spells it out clearly, in English, for those that can read their own language. --Igor, 0:13, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, whether conciously or not, you are oftenly writing about politically loaded terms as if they are not politically loaded. Even if the phrase is not intended to have political meaning, it is percieved as if it is. Nikola 08:11, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Understand your concerns Chris, but I think it is fair to say that there is a political angle to the phrase. For instance, if I were to use the phrase 'Spain proper' in connection with the Basque region, there would be controversy. I think it's use here is entirely appropriate, but there is no such thing as purely and non-political geography in South East Europe right now... Yours, Mark Richards 23:05, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is only a "political angle" because paranoid nationalists think that it's a sneaky way of saying that Kosovo and Vojvodina aren't part of Serbia. That meaning simply is not true. The term "Serbia proper" has been used for many years - well before the Yugoslav wars - and probably came into use to denote the difference between the core of Serbia and the provinces which it acquired in the early 20th century (Kosovo in 1912, Vojvodina in 1918).

Actually that's wrong, Kosovo was part of Serbia way before that, Vojvodina as well, but this is not the place for such a discussion, because after all this has nothing to do with Kosovo or Vojvodina, right? -- Igor, 0:13, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

While they certainly are part of the modern Serbian state, they have often been distinguished in English from the "original Serbia" (i.e. pre-1912).

Serbia's borders before 1912 do not coincide with the borders of Serbia minus Vojvodina and Kosovo. --Igor, 0:13, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is a very different situation to that of the Basque parts of Spain, which have been part of that country for nearly 500 years. As a matter of fact, "Spain proper" has been used, but only to refer to the distinction between European Spain and Spanish colonial possessions. -- ChrisO 23:30, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Castilla, Galicia, Andalusia, Catalonia, not Spain proper. However, this has nothing to do with Spain or the Basques either.--Igor, 0:13, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm with you Chris. Agreed. Mark Richards 23:40, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Why do you think everything has political connotation

I AM NOT A NATIONALIST! I am just pointing to difference between languages that's all. And you people who watch news whole day are going crazy of politics. If you didn`t know there are other things then politics in this world that we can argue about. Is it so hard to understand that in Serbia is used different term then the term in English? And i think that we have to write about that not just say it`s serbia proper and the end. we have to say that there are different terms ok? ChrisO maybe i don`t know your language as you do but imagine one thing-english is not official language in serbia !!!! THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SERBIAN AND ENGLISH AND IT`S NORMAL. So stop saying that it is disliked in serbia when people don`t use that term! I think I know better what is used in Serbia and what is not! OK? If I get an idea to call Scotland-English grass it doesn`t mean that people in UK are crazy and nationalists and sick if they don`t use it. They just never heard of such thing or it sounds funny in england or there is another term and OF COURSE that it is much better to use original term than the one made outside of country. Of course many people in USA and Australia don`t even know where is London and we are talking about region in one small country in southern Europe. They don`t even care but they will still argue like one woman from USA that was ready to bet that England is not in Europe....

BTW chriso serbia was originally "made" around kosovo and raska back in IX and X century not in 1912. SO I WILL SAY ONE THING THAT WE SAY HERE IN SERBIA WHEN SOMEONE IS TALKING YOU HOW TO DO SOMETHING BUT HE IS NOT INTO IT LIKE YOU ARE: "NEMOJ DA MI SOLIS PAMET" -DON`T PUT SALT IN MY MIND!!!!!

KOSOVO IS IN SERBIA FOR 1000 YEARS TWICE AS LONG THAN THE SPAIN THING ACCEPT IT PLEASE. SO KOSOVO IS NOT SERBIAN COLONY! OR MAYBE IT IS I MEAN WHEN SLAVIC PEOPLE CAME THERE PROBABLY SOME PEOPLE LIVED THERE 1000 YEARS AGO.

• DON`T SAY NOW THAT I AM NATIONALIST BECAUSE YOU WILL MAKE FOOL OF YOURSELF(ENGLAND WAS NOT ON BRITISH ISLE SINCE 1948-WHAT WOULD I BE IF I WOULD SAY THAT)- JUST TAKE A LOOK IN SOME HISTORY BOOK IF YOU HAVE ONE :(

Thanks - I guess that settles the issue then! Mark Richards 22:13, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to claim to have any authority on this issue at all. After following this debate, however, it sounds to me as if the term "Serbia proper" is an English term that has no counterpart in Serbian. It also sounds as if "Serbia proper" is used (in English) to refer to a geographical region of Serbia that is not an administrative division by itself, much like the terms "Midwest" and "New England" are used in the United States. Please correct me if either of these are incorrect.

I don't understand why some people are so hostile to the inclusion of this term. I will accept that there is no equivalent Serbian term, and that the concept of "Serbia proper" is unknown in Serbia, but this is the English Wikipedia, after all, and the term "Serbia proper" is used in English. I can also understand why people from Kosovo or Vojvodina may be offended by the implication that their provinces are somehow inferior or non-Serbian. However, the Wikipedia should not make moral judgements on the terms it includes. Since "Serbia proper" is a term used in English, I feel it should at least be mentioned in the article. Of course, it should also be mentioned that this term has no Serbian counterpart and is sometimes considered offensive. —Bkell 18:05, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My copy of Jugoslovenska enciklopedija (Jugoslovenski leksikografski zavod, Zagreb, 1981) says (bold font by me):

Srbija /.../ Sastoji se od tri velike teritorijalno-polit. celine: tzv. uže Srbije' /.../, SAP Vojvodine /.../ i SAP Kosova /.../.

Now, this encyclopedia was published in Zagreb, but I'm sure that the geographers and linguists from all ex-YU were involved in its creation. Also I remember from my school days that teachers in Slovenia were refering to so called "proper Serbia" by ožja Srbija. Of course no offence was meant and it was still very clear that the Serbia has authority also on both its SAP's, but it was just a shortcut for the geographical part of SR Serbia that is neither SAP Kosovo nor SAP Vojvodina. Just my 2 paras, with no agenda. --Romanm 21:50, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very useful. I wonder if the English term "Serbia proper" might actually have come from Serbo-Croat during the Yugoslav era? How exactly is "uže" translated in this context? -- ChrisO 00:01, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Uže" is a genitive of adjective "uža", which can be translated to English as narrow or tight or similar. --Romanm 20:17, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That suggests that your usage is very similar to the English one. I've noted it in the article - thanks again. -- ChrisO 21:28, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

UZA or CENTRALNA; CENTRAL OR PROPER

Just for the record if you type

Google search
Uza Srbija	1,500 results
Centralna Srbija	6,480 results
Central Serbia	1,260,000 results
Serbia proper	110,000 results

Avala 13:33, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I found these Google test results suspect from the beginning, but now I finally got around to checking them. The problem is that the upper searches didn't use quotes, so any pages which have all of the search words on them will be returned, not just those that use the expression. The other problem is that google can't find "uža" if you're searching for "uza". An additional problem is the declension in Serbian, but there's no reason to believe that one expression would appearn uncommonly frequently in nominative. The revised results are:

Google search
"centralna srbija"	961 hits [1] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=%22centralna+srbija%22&btnG=Search)
"uza srbija" OR "uža srbija"	2,300 hits [2] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=%22uza+srbija%22+OR+%22u%C5%BEa+srbija%22&btnG=Search)
"central serbia"	14,300 hits [3] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=%22central+serbia%22&btnG=Search)
"serbia proper"	20,300 hits [4] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=%22central+serbia%22&btnG=Search)

Google is a very useful tool, you just have to learn how to use it. Zocky 12:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More about "Serbia proper"

moved to Talk: Serbia proper Pa pisite na srpskom da vas ceo svet razume. Srbija do Tokija.KImi Novi Sad

The motto

Is there any proof that "samo sloga Srbina spašava" is the national motto of Serbia? AFAIK, it's just a proverb. Zocky 21:04, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

This symbol for "samo sloga Srbina spasava" is placed on both national coats of arms. I am not sure if it is written in constitution or not, but still it is widely used here.

That symbol is the Serbian national coat of arms which depicts a cross and four fire-irons ("ocila"), and are not cyrillic letters "C" (= "S). Four C's and "Samo sloga Srbina spašava" are a popular explanation of the coat of arms, but are just legends. There's no official motto of Serbia, AFAIK. Zocky 01:34, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

legends? nope. ocila asre standing for samo sloga srbina spasava. there are some people whoa are saying that it stands for shamo shljiva shljivu shljivi which is more than funny. Avala 12:58, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, some points:

• The coat of arms is completely irelevant. The four ocila were originaly used in the Byzantine as stylized B's and stood for the imperial motto Basileus Basileon Basileuon Basileusin ("King of kings, ruling over kings") in Greek. I have seen no reference to "Samo sloga srbina spašava" before 19th century, and the used of the coat of arms by SPC is much older. The reading of the symbol as four C's and its association with the slogan are relatively recent.
• There is NO website (apart from Wikipedia) which mentions "Samo sloga Srbina spašava" as national motto of Serbia.
• Article 5 of the consitution of Serbia (http://www.parlament.sr.gov.yu/content/eng/akta/ustav/ustav_1.asp) expressly states that "The Republic of Serbia has a coat of arms, a flag, and a national anthem." No motto is mentioned.

Secondly, i'm removing the motto. Please provide some proof that "Samo sloga Srbina spašava" is the national motto of Serbia before putting it back in. Zocky 14:08, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OH OK! Please before removing it again - DELETE anthem and flag and everything from UK cause it is not official.

• Article 5 of the consitution of Serbia (http://www.parlament.sr.gov.yu/content/eng/akta/ustav/ustav_1.asp) expressly states that "The Republic of Serbia has a coat of arms, a flag, and a national anthem." No motto is mentioned.

• • Yes it is in description of coat of arms

Here we go again.

Firstly, the points:

• Your first point is wrong: The current Law on the coat of arms mentions no motto and there is no motto on the current Serbian coat of arms and there's nothing to describe. If you don't agree, provide proof.
• The UK example is wrong: The English legal system is fundamentally different, so "official" means different things. At least the flag is officially official. But even if it weren't: the English government officially uses both the flag and the coat of arms (which inculdes the motto), and the flag, the coat of arms and the motto are generally recognized to be those of United Kingdom. OTOH, the Serbian government does not use SSSS as a motto, it is not mentioned once on it websites or in any explanation of the coat of arms and no website claims it to be the national motto.
• This is an encyclopaedia article, not a wishlist. Only provable facts are acceptable, especially in condensed information.
• And finally, what's your point? Why would you want the article on Serbia to include a national motto if the country has none?

Secondly, i'm removing the motto. Please provide some proof that "Samo sloga Srbina spasava" is the national motto of Serbia before putting it back in. Zocky 16:21, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

7th-14th century

Medieval Serbia (7th - 14th century) After this initial blooming of the Serbian state, a period of stasis and retrogression followed. Marked by disintegration and crises it lasted until the end of 12th century. After a struggle for the throne with his brothers, Stefan Nemanja, the founder of the Nemanjic dynasty, rose to power in 1170 and started renewing the Serbian state in the Raska region. Sometimes with the sponsorship of Byzantium, and sometimes opposing it, the veliki zupan (a title equivalent to the rank of prince) Stefan Nemanja expanded his state seizing territories east and south, and newly annexed the littoral and the Zeta region. Along with his governmental efforts, the veliki zupan dedicated much care to the construction of monasteries. His endowments include the Djurdjevi Stupovi Monastery and the Studenica Monastery in the Raska region, and the Hilandar Monastery on Mt. Athos.

Stefan Nemanja - St. Simeon

Stefan Nemanja was succeeded by his middle son Stefan, whilst his first-born Vukan was given the rule of the Zeta region (present-day Montenegro). Stefan Nemanja's youngest son Rastko became a monk and took the name of Sava, turning all his efforts to spreading religiousness among his people. Since the Curia already had ambitions to spread its influence to the Balkans as well, Stefan used these propitious circumstances to obtain his crown from the Pope thus becoming the first Serbian king in 1217. In Byzantium, his brother Sava managed to secure the autocephalous status for the Serbian Church and became the first Serbian archbishop in 1219. Thus the Serbs acquired both forms of independence: temporal and religious.

St. Sava The next generation of Serbian rulers - the sons of Stefan Prvovencani - Radoslav, Vladislav and Uros I, marked a period of stagnation of the state structure. All three kings were more or less dependent on some of the neighboring states - Byzantium, Bulgaria or Hungary. The ties with the Hungarians had a decisive role in the fact that Uros I was succeeded by his son Dragutin whose wife was a Hungarian princess. Later on, when Dragutin abdicated in favor of his younger brother Milutin, the Hungarian king Ladislaus IV gave him lands in northeastern Bosnia, the regions of Srem and Macva, and the city of Belgrade, whilst he managed to conquer and annex lands in northeastern Serbia. Thus, all these territories became part of the Serbian state for the first time.

King Dragutin Under the rule of Dragutin's younger brother - King Milutin, Serbia grew stronger in spite of the fact that occasionally it had to fight wars on three different fronts. King Milutin was an apt diplomat much inclined to the use of a customary medieval diplomatic expedients - dynastic marriages. He was married five times, with Hungarian, Bulgarian and Byzantine princesses. He is also famous for building churches, some of which are the brightest examples of Medieval Serbian architecture: the Gracanica Monastery in Kosovo, the Cathedral in Hilandar Monastery on Mt. Athos, the St. Archangel Church in Jerusalem etc. Because of his endowments, King Milutin has been proclaimed a saint, in spite of his tumultuous life. He was succeeded on the throne by his son Stefan, later dubbed Stefan Decanski. Spreading the kingdom to the east by winning the town of Nis and the surrounding counties, and to the south by acquiring territories on Macedonia, Stefan Decanski was worthy of his father and built the Visoki Decani Monastery in Metohija - the most monumental example of Serbian Medieval architecture - that earned him his byname.

14th-19th century

Having defeated the Serbian army in two crucial battles: on the banks of the river Marica in 1371 - where the forces of noblemen from Macedonia were defeated, and on Kosovo Polje (Kosovo Plain) in 1389, where the vassal troops commanded by Prince Lazar - the strongest regional ruler in Serbia at the time - suffered a catastrophic defeat. The Battle of Kosovo defined the fate of Serbia, because after it no force capable of standing up to the Turks existed. This was an unstable period marked by the rule of Prince Lazar's son - despot Stefan Lazarevic - a true European-style knight a military leader and even poet, and his cousin Djuradj Brankovic, who moved the state capital north - to the newly built fortified town of Smederevo. The Turks continued their conquest until they finally seized the entire Serbian territory in 1459 when Smederevo fell into their hands. Serbia was ruled by the Ottoman Empire for almost five centuries. The Turks persecuted the Serbian aristocracy, determined to physically exterminate the social elite. Since the Ottoman Empire was an Islamic theocratic state, Christian Serbs lived as virtual bond servants - abused, humiliated and exploited. Consequently they gradually abandoned the developed and urban centers where mining, crafts and trade was practiced and withdrew to hostile mountains living on cattle breeding and modest farming.

Devastated Monastery of St. Archangeles near Prizrena

European powers, and Austria in particular, fought many wars against Turkey, relying on the help of the Serbs that lived under Ottoman rule. During the Austrian-Turkish War (1593-1606) in 1594 the Serbs staged an uprising in Banat - the Pannonian part of Turkey, and the sultan retaliated by burning the remains of St. Sava - the most sacred thing for all Serbs honored even by Moslems of Serbian origin. Serbs created another center of resistance in Herzegovina but when peace was signed by Turkey and Austria they abandoned to Turkish vengeance. This sequence of events became usual in the centuries that followed.

Emigration of Serbs During the Great War (1683-1690) between Turkey and the Holy Alliance - created with the sponsorship of the Pope and including Austria, Poland and Venice - these three powers incited the Serbs to rebel against the Turkish authorities, and soon uprisings and guerrilla spread throughout the western Balkans: from Montenegro and the Dalmatian coast to the Danube basin and Ancient Serbia (Macedonia, Raska, Kosovo and Metohija). However, when the Austrians started to pull out of Serbia, they invited the Serbian people to come north with them to the Austrian territories. Having to choose between Turkish vengeance and living in a Christian state, Serbs massively abandoned their homesteads and headed north lead by their patriarch Arsenije Carnojevic. Many areas in southern Balkans were de-populated in the process, and the Turks used the opportunity to Islamize Raska, Kosovo and Metohija and to a certain extent Macedonia. A process whose effects are still visible today started.

Another important episode in Serbian history took place in 1716-1718, when the Serbian ethnic territories ranging from Dalmatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina to Belgrade and the Danube basin newly became the battleground for a new Austria-Turkish war launched by Prince Eugene of Savoy. The Serbs sided once again with Austria. After a peace treaty was signed in Pozarevac, Turkey lost all its possessions in the Danube basin, as well as northern Serbia and northern Bosnia, parts of Dalmatia and the Peloponnesus.

The last Austrian-Turkish war was the so called Dubica War (1788-1791), when the Austrians newly urged the Christians in Bosnia to rebel. No wars were fought afterwards until the 20th century that marked the fall of both mighty empires.

Modern Serbia

Serbian resistance to Ottoman domination, latent for many decades surfaced at the beginning of 19th century with the First and Second Serbian Uprising in 1804 and 1815. The Turkish Empire was already faced with a deep internal crisis without any hope of recuperating. This had a particularly hard effect on the Christian nations living under its rule. The Serbs launched not only a national revolution but a social one as well and gradually Serbia started to catch up with the European states with the introduction of the bourgeois society values. Resulting from the uprisings and subsequent wars against the Ottoman Empire, the independent Principality of Serbia was formed and granted international recognition in 1878.

This period was marked by the alternation of two dynasties descending from Djordje Petrovic - Karadjordje, leader of the First Serbian Uprising and Milos Obrenovic, leader of the Second Serbian Uprising. Further development of Serbia was characterized by general progress in economy, culture and arts, primarily due to a wise state policy of sending young people to European capitals to get an education. They all brought back a new spirit and a new system of values. One of the external manifestations of the transformation that the former Turkish province was going through was the proclamation of the Kingdom of Serbia in 1882.

King Petar I Karadjordjevic In the second half of 19th century Serbia was integrated into the constellation of European states and the first political parties were founded thus giving new momentum to political life. The coup d'etat in 1903, bringing Karadjordje's grandson to the throne with the title of King Petar I opened the way for parliamentary democracy in Serbia. Having received a European education, this liberal king translated "On Freedom" by John Stewart Mile and gave his country a democratic constitution. It initiated a period of parliamentary government and political freedom interrupted by the outbreak of the liberation wars. The Balkan wars 1912 - 1913, terminated the Turkish domination in the Balkans. Turkey was pushed back across the channel, and national Balkan states were created in the territories it withdrew from.

The assassination of Austrian Crown Prince Franc Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914, served as a pretext for the Austrian attack on Serbia that marked the beginning of World War I. The Serbian Army bravely defended its country and won several major victories, but it was finally overpowered by the joint forces of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria, and had to withdraw from the national territory marching across the Albanian mountain ranges to the Adriatic Sea. Having recuperated on Corfu the Serbian Army returned to combat on the Thessalonike front together with other Entante forces comprising France, England, Russia, Italy and the United States. In world War I Serbia had 1.264.000 casualties - 28% of its population (4.529.000) which also represented 58% of its male population - a loss it never fully recuperated from. This enormous sacrifice was the contribution Serbia gave to the Allied victory and the remodeling of Europe and of the World after World War I.

Kingdom of Yugoslavia

1914-1918 With the end of World War I and the downfall of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire the conditions were met for proclaiming the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians in December of 1918. The Yugoslav ideal had long been cultivated by the intellectual circles of the three nations that gave the name to the country, but the international constellation of political forces and interests did not permit its implementation until then. However, after the war, idealist intellectuals gave way to politicians and the most influential Croatian politicians opposed the new state right from the start.

The Croatian Peasants' Party (HSS) headed by Stjepan Radic, and then by Vlatko Macek slowly grew to become a massive party endorsing Croatian national interests. According to its leaders the Yugoslav state did not provide a satisfactory solution to the Croatian national question. They chose to conduct their political battle by systematically obstructing state institutions and making political coalitions to undermine the state unity, thus extorting certain concessions. Each political or economic issue was used as a pretext for raising the so-called "unsettled Croatian question".

Trying to match this challenge and prevent any further weakening of the country, King Aleksandar I banned national political parties in 1929, assumed executive power and renamed the country Yugoslavia. He hoped to curb separatist tendencies and mitigate nationalist passions. However the balance of power changed in international relations: in Italy and Germany Fascists and Nazis rose to power, and Stalin became the absolute ruler in the Soviet Union. None of these three states favored the policy pursued by Aleksandar I. In fact the first two wanted to revise the international treaties signed after World War I, and the Soviets were determined to regain their positions in Europe and pursue a more active international policy. Yugoslavia was an obstacle for these plans and King Aleksandar I was the pillar of the Yugoslav policy.

During an official visit to France in 1934, the king was assassinated in Marseilles by a member of VMRO - an extreme nationalist organization in Bulgaria that had plans to annex territories along the eastern and southern Yugoslav border - with the cooperation of the Ustashi - a Croatian fascist separatist organization. The international political scene in the late 30's was marked by growing intolerance between the principal figures, by the aggressive attitude of the totalitarian regimes and by the certainty that the order set up after World War I is was loosing its strongholds and its sponsors were loosing their strength. Supported and pressured by Fascist Italy and nazi Germany, Croatian leader Vlatko Macek and his party managed to extort the creation of the Croatian banovina (administrative province) in 1939. The agreement specified that Croatia were to remain part of Yugoslavia, but it was hurriedly building an independent political identity in international relations.

Flag change?

Copied from Talk:Flag of Serbia - suggest that both this and other article need updated with new flag as official... Comments? zoney ▓█▒ talk 18:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

BBC reported (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3573958.stm) that the flag had been changed to the version introduced in this article as "unofficial". Can anyone verify that everything is done and dusted and that the flag with coat of arms is official as of now? Note that the Serbian coat of arms article has been updated. Should we switch to using the "new" Serbian flag throughout Wikipedia? zoney ███ talk 19:55, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes it did change, though I wouldn't call this version "unofficial" but "popular". State institutions are obliged to have the flag with the CoA. Citizens and various organisations can (must?) hoist flag without CoA. I'll try to find exact text of the law. Nikola 14:48, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

constitutional language

The language name changed by anonymous is de jure correct, however, there's more to it...

• The whole Constitution which the change is based on is relatively out of date, because it's from early 1990, meaning it's still the same Constitution that existed during the SFRY.
• According to this separate constitutional law (http://www.srbija-info.yu/cinjenice/ustav.html) there's supposed to be a separate law on the use of the official language and its alphabets, too, which wouldn't change the name (it isn't marked as a constitutional law) but would probably enlighten on how the eastern variant is the only one used.
• According to this constitutional draft (http://www.propisi.com/tekstovi/nacrt_ustava.htm) by the 2004 government, the language is back to the now-common name.

--Joy [shallot] 22:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Crown Prince

Should the article have something about Crown Prince Alexander II or the royal family? Jonathunder 20:59, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Formal name

The correct full formal name for 'Serbia and Montenegro' is the State Union of... I've amended the main page to reflect. The spelling of Metohija is incorrect in the side panel - there's no reason to use the archaic and rarely-used 'Metohia'. Plus, glancing through the article, there's some poorly drafted bit of 'Politics' in the 'History' section. Other than that, the whole page seems a bit thin for a country with so much, well, history. And no-one even mentions basketball! (JD)

history section

The history section really grew out of proportion. It should be merged into History of Serbia. --Joy [shallot] 23:58, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ice Cream?

Is Serbia known for it's Ice Cream? A good friend of mine claimed that their Ice Cream is world famous. Is this true? -- Doctor Willars (Click Me!)

Would you like a receipt? --Ninam 06:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Huh? A receipt? But I didn't buy anything... Could you be meaning something else? -- Doctor Willars (Or Me!)

Peerhaps not proper word. Would you like to know how to prepare it, at home. --Ninam 04:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you must mean 'Recipe'. Receipts are small slips of paper generally given out at a store after a purchase, as a 'proof of purchase', similar to a 'Bill' or 'Invoice'. But certainly, I would really appreciate a recipe. How could I acquire such a Recipe? -- Doctor Willars (Even Me!) 02:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ethnicities

I just thought I would bring it to attention that the side bar shows the population of Serbia without Kosovo, and then directly beneath it is the ethnic groups in all of Serbia. This is very misleading people will think that this is the percentage of ethnicities in Serbia excluding Kosovo is like this and I think we should add a note in brackets that states those stats include Kosovo

If you believe they do not include Kosovo I can pull up government stats...

Djindjic

"After two years of struggle, trying to reform a destroyed country and fighting with people who were afraid of the changes that the new Prime Minister applied, Zoran Djindjic was assassinated in Belgrade on March 12, 2003 by the mafia."

This is propaganda, a theory, it has not at all been proven, there are theories that suggest that Russians set up the kill, that the Americans did, this is only one (although it is the most accepted) theory of many, and I believe it should be stated this way within the article, because if we leave it like this is it seems as if we are stating a proven fact which is not the case.

"Immediately after assassination, Government (Vlada) declared "war" on the mafia and reactionary forces, eventually destroying most of the mafia organization. Zoran Zivković led the Government until a new election was held in December 2003. After almost three months of negotiations, Vojislav Kostunica formed the new Government in March 2004. Three months later, Boris Tadić, successor of Zoran Djindjic as President of the Democratic Party, became the new President of Serbia."

Destroying the mafia? I almost brust into tears laughing when I saw this. Everyhing is still controlled by the mafia in Serbia, even the soccer league, a better way would be to say "eventually attempting to destory parts of the mafia" the reason I say parts is because the government itself is involved with the mafia so we obviously won't see that part of it go away while this government is still in power. Whoever wrote this part of the aricle is pro DSS but we are looking for NPOV, I wish the last paragraph was true but its far from that.

Constitution from 1974

To explain to User:ProhibitOnions: It made power of central state less. Republics had their own central banks (but also federal bank), their own military organizations ("territorial defense"; but federal army was more important and a lot stronger; TO was the basis of armies of Bosniks, Croatians, Slovenians and Macedonians); but police was republic-based and republic polices was much stronger then federal (police was the other basis of future armies). However, Serbia was decentralized, too; with a lot of power moved to Kosovo and Vojvodina. Other republics wasn't. It should be described into article, too (but my English is not so good). It was even very strange for inhabitans of Inner Serbia. For example: 8 members of collective president of SFRY was: 6 from republics and 2 from regions from Serbia. But, one from serbia was not elected only by inhabitans of Inner Serbia, but from inhabitans of regions, too. So, it can be said that inhabitans of Kosovo and Vojvodina always voted twice. --Millosh 21:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I hope my edit helped make this clear. In a short version of the text, the constitution "increased regional autonomy"; if we have the chance to go into detail it should mention everything you've written here.

What we really should do is take out the history section and instead point to the History of Serbia article, as there's too much overlap between the two. At the same time, there are big gaps in it, including some of the most important times (such as post-WWII) and there was quite a bit of POV in the recent history (in part through omission of other viewpoints), which I hope I've fixed somewhat. --ProhibitOnions 11:12, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)