Macedonia has Officially Changed its Name

Tsar

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
2,010
Serbia
Don't the French get their name from France, or the Spanish from Spain, the Germans from Germany; don't the Croatians, the Slovenes, the Serbians get their name from their respective countries? Since when this rule has been abolished, and by whom?
In Serbian case, it's the country that was named after the nation (the Serbs).
 

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,520
Lower Styria, Slovenia
In Serbian case, it's the country that was named after the nation (the Serbs).
You are right. And so did Croatia and Slovenia. The people gave the name to their country, not vice versa. But that's not always the case. With FYROMacedonia it's the oposite.
 
Nov 2014
930
USA
In Serbian case, it's the country that was named after the nation (the Serbs).
I also had written:

"When Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro became independent, it did not happen because they merely referred to a certain region, it was a lot more because they referred to their particular ethnicity.
In the case of FYROM it does not have to do only with their …….expanded notion of region for Macedonia, but also assuming part of the ethnicity from Greece."
 
Nov 2014
930
USA
The case of former Yugoslavia is a very interesting and very particular, of why the all supposed different people actually broke up.

The most clear case were the Slovenes who although Slavs also, did not only had a different language from the Serbs who were trying to keep the country together, but also a different religion, and therefore had more reasons than others to separate; I guess a two day war with them was enough to seal the deal.
Of course they also had some outside help for that, but that's another story.

The case of Croatia was different to explain; being also Southern Slavs they basically spoke the same language with the Serbs, and they appeared to have a lot in common, except they had also different religion which shouldn't had been an issue because Orthodoxy and Catholicism is practically the same. I think however what differentiated them mostly was politics and historical background from the 40's. The Croatians were more right wing (although Tito was a Croatian and also Communist), while the Serbs were more left wing.
Another thing that was of interest is how the Croatians got to get all of the coastline in the Adriatic and the Serbians eventually got excluded from it?

The case of Montenegro was the one that is a lot harder to understand. Same language, same religion and I always thought practically the same people. The only explanation I have for their separation is a case of regions.
I might be wrong on that, if somebody knows more about it, he could let me know.

The case of Bosnia is a lot easier to explain since you were dealing with a completely different religion and there were a lot of enmities from past behaviors during the Ottoman occupation.
Beyond that however this newly formed country doesn't appear to be a viable state being shared by Croatians, Bosnians and Serbians.

Kosovo is another abnormality where it used to be a traditional and historical place for Serbia, it looks that the Albanians are/will take it over due to population for the creation of greater Albania.


Thanks to the Americans and other Northern Europeans for demonizing the Serbians for crimes committed during the war, and publicizing them worldwide while at the same time not giving a lot of emphasis to the crimes of the others, the Serbians eventually got the raw end of the whole deal.
 
Last edited:

Tsar

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
2,010
Serbia
The case of Croatia was different to explain; being also Southern Slavs they basically spoke the same language with the Serbs, and they appeared to have a lot in common, except they had also different religion which shouldn't had been an issue because Orthodoxy and Catholicism is practically the same. I think however what differentiated them mostly was politics and historical background from the 40's. The Croatians were more right wing (although Tito was a Croatian and also Communist), while the Serbs were more left wing.

Another thing that was of interest is how the Croatians got to get all of the coastline in the Adriatic and the Serbians eventually got excluded from it?
The cornerstone of extremely bad relations among the Croats and the Serbs are the different forms of nationalism. Croatia, although not independent, was a crown land of the Habsburgs for centuries. As all other "historical" nations in the Habsburg Monarchy, the Croats developed civic nationalism ("everyone living in Croatia is a Croat"). On the other hand, the Serbs developed the form of ethnic nationalism ("everybody with perceived Serb ancestors is a Serb").

The relations were bad ever since the beginnings of the 19th century (if not further). What made those bad relations even worse was the dissolution of the Military Frontier and annexation of most parts by the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Most of the Serbs who had zero association with Croatia became citizens of Croatia and political Croats overnight. Croatia also got a big majority that was unwilling to recognize its Croat-ness.

As for the coastline, it went like most of Roman Catholic areas between Croatia and Serbia. The Croats used a common language and political nationalism to assimilate many separate ethnic groups (Slovinci in Slavonia and Syrmia, Šokci and Bunjevci in Bačka, Baranya and Banat, Bosnian Catholics, Dalmatian Catholics, Ragusans and so on).

One also needs to have in mind that Yugoslavia was an artificial state - do remind that Serbian government asked no one whether he wanted unification or not. Same goes for the Croats, Slovenes and Habsburg Serbs. Relations among the peoples of future Yugoslavia were not as nearly as harmonious as Yugoslav literature tried to paint them.

Also saying that the Orthodox and Roman Catholics are the same isn't recommendable, as the Serbs suffered from violent campaigns for conversion to Roman Catholicism, not to mention the role of the Roman Catholic church in the WW2.

The case of Montenegro was the one that is a lot harder to understand. Same language, same religion and I always thought practically the same people. The only explanation I have for their separation is a case of regions.
I might be wrong on that, if somebody knows more about it, he could let me know.
Montenegro was formed through a combination of separate nationalism created by Yugoslav communists and a mafia-ran state. They went so far to proclaim an ex-priest the bishop of independent "Montenegrin Orthodox Church". A part of the church (Podgorica) separated and is currently a part of "Ukrainian Orthodox Church". Montenegrin case has much to do with the Macedonian one.
 
Nov 2014
930
USA
I guess Tito thought that by suppressing nationalism and establishing communism, all the differences that were underlying for all these people will go away and Yugoslavia will be a strong country playing both East and West.
It looked like he was relying more on the Serbs to accomplish this even by force. It didn't work though after his death, and they ended up with seven different countries.

Tito was also helping the Greek communists to take over the country after the withdrawal of the Germans in the WW2.
I didn't care very much for him and I didn't appreciate the way he treated Mikhailovich in order to eliminate any opposition that could have been present after the war.

He was also the one responsible for creating the problem with Macedonia and encouraging the FYROMians to assume things that didn't belong to them to begin with.

The same thing happened in the Soviet Union, where they ended up with 15 different countries after Stalinism was finally discredited.
 

Tsar

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
2,010
Serbia
I guess Tito thought that by suppressing nationalism and establishing communism, all the differences that were underlying for all these people will go away and Yugoslavia will be a strong country playing both East and West.
It looked like he was relying more on the Serbs to accomplish this even by force. It didn't work though after his death, and they ended up with seven different countries.
The very program of Tito was weak Serbia=strong Yugoslavia. Note that Serbia had two autonomous regions and was the only republic with such regions (which became de facto independent in 1974). Not to mention the discrepancy between the territory of Serbia and Serb ethnic area. While one might call the Kingdom of Yugoslavia "Greater Serbia" (even though I would disagree), the Socialist Yugoslavia was definitely not "Greater Serbia".
 

Similar History Discussions