The periodic system of elements (Medeleev), modern engineering mechanics (Timoshenko),

modern rocketry, astronautics and astronautic theory (Tsiolkovsky), Mohorovičić

discontinuity (Mohorovichich), heliocentric theory (Kopernik), hyperbolic
geometry/Lobachevskian geometry (Lobachevski), the helicopter (Sikorsky), radioactive
theory (Maria Sklodowska-Curie), early photography (Levitsky), wireless telegraphy
(Murgas), Big Bang theory (Gamow), objective psychology (Bekhterev), walkie-talkies
(Magnuski), colour television (Zworkin), electric tram (Pirotsky), alternating current,
induction motor, plasma globe, Tesla turbine and valve, rotating magnetic field, hydroelectric
plant, cryogenic engineering, transistor, modern electric motor, wireless remote control, neon
lighting, wireless communication, radio (Tesla), long-range telephone, loading coil (Pupin),
crystalline growth research (Stranski), modern geochemistry and biochemistry (Vernadsky),
rocket science (Korolev), pre-lumiere camera (Prosynski), incandescent bulb (Lodygin),
transformers (Yablochov), lasers (Brasov and Prokhorov), Light-emitting diodes (Losev and
Holonyak), synthetic rubber (Lebedev), solar cells (Stolev), digital electronic computing
(Atanasov), field recorders (Fidelski), contact lenses (Witcherle) pictorial textbooks, modern
education (Komensky), caterpillar tracks (Blinov), electrically-powered railway wagons
(Pirotsky), Videotape recorder (Poniatov), petrol cracking (Shukhov), grain harvester
(Vlasenko), modern anthropology (Malinowski), bullet proof vest (Zeglen), parachute
(Kotelnikov), mine detector (Kosacki), space travel (Tsiolkovsky, again), vitamins (Funk),
lunar roving vehicle (Mieczysław Gregory Bekker), sound in films (Tykociner), Radar
(Popov), train air brakes (Bozic), conventionally usable plastic (Stepanovic), ballpoint pen
(Penkala), supersonic photography (Salcher), dactyloscopy (Vucetic), the antibiotic
azithromycin (Gabrijela Kobrehel, Gorjana Radobolja-Lazarevski, and Zrinka Tamburašev,
led by Dr. Slobodan Đokić) the power block (Puratic), modern petroleum industry (Ignacy
Łukasiewicz), WebGL, APNG (Vukicevic), powered exoskeleton, zero moment point
(Vukobratovic), first prosthetic hand with five fingers (Tomovic), aethalometer (Novakov),
HRS - 100, CER Computers, ATLAS – TIM AT 32 (Mihajlo Pupin Institute), Cuk Converter
(Cuk), Quantum Discord (Vedral), hair clipper (Bizumic) and the kerosene lamp
(Łukasiewicz).

Arguments against anti-Slavic sentiments and propaganda:

“Do you think that I am going to be impressed by someone desperately looking for internet
proof when I have been studying Slavic history for well over seven years(and unlike you I
have actually been to Eastern Europe and Central Asia)? What's amusing is that I have
repeatedly offered you the chance to admit that this area for you is an intellectual blind-spot,
and that you would do more actual research and hopefully some footwork. The more you
fight however, the deeper hole you dig for yourself. Wikipedia, that is what you solely rely
on? Well let's see, the term "Nem", for Germans, is translated as "cannot speak"(sometimes
called 'dumb'). This had nothing to do with a ludicrous claim that Germans had no language.
It is actually the opposite. The guttural sounds of Germans led early Slavic tribes to believe
that Germans had difficulty talking, and the name stuck. Incidentally Yiddish is an Indo-
European language by default, when the Jews were confined to Slavic territory, they naturally
adopted Slavic words. As they moved westward, they eventually adopted far more German
words, as is apparent from listening to the language today. It is worth noting that while Slavs
were known to strictly confine the Jews to ghettos and the Pale of Settlement, there was
considerable mixing in the German population with the newcomers, which had a profound
influence on the Nuremburg Laws. “The "white niggers" as the West calls them, conquered
Eastern Europe from rival tribes, conquered Southeastern Europe, and then over time
managed to conquer all of Siberia, despite some of the most inhospitable conditions on this
planet, and against the will of some of history's deadliest tribes. Slavs have historically
defended Europe from the most ruthless invaders - the Turks and the Mongols. Survival is the
privilege of the strong. Recent history has shown us that the self-reported “great blood” of
Germany and Western Europe is mostly spent. For all their economic prosperity, what matter
will it be when it is finally inherited by Turks and North Africans? Even a cursory
examination of the history of decline in modern day Eastern Europe shows that all negative
aspects were the result of importing "Western" ideas and methods - weak philosophy about
"open society" and the joy of capitalism. Soon certain Western nations are about to
experience the same economic disasters, and when they do, we will see the same scenes of
poverty and chaos as we did in Eastern Europe - and realize that our problem is a racial
problem. Regardless of individual country, the problem with the Europid race is always the
same. It is always apathy, it is always lack of true identity, it is always a lack of foresight.
Even religion has no effect. One can find examples all over the world of Muslims resisting
the capitalistic world order, but what is the one Islamic ethnicity that provides virtually no
resistance against that same enemy: The Bosniaks. Of course, the Europid Muslims do
nothing. Usually based on some misunderstanding of racial/ethnic politics in the late 19th,
early 20th century, they mistakenly believe the Slavs, the largest Indo-European ethnic group,
is somehow not “European” or less “European” than Western Europeans. Latest believer in
this nonsense is the German race. This belief is largely based on total ignorance of history,
and German arguments that the Slavs have "always been slaves" among others demonstrates
total disconnection with reality and European and history in general. Most ironic is that the
West does not employ the reasoning for the Irish, who essentially were slaves for most of
their existence, and technically still don't have an independent country. Compare that to
Russia which conquered most of Asia from the ruthless tribes and hordes of the steppe.
Compare that to the way that Slavs conquered Southeastern Europe, driving out Byzantines,
forming the Serb and Bulgarian empires and wiping out Avars, Alans, and others. This is not
to suggest that somehow Irish are "inferior", only a complete idiot would come to such a
logically flawed conclusion. They refuse to account for their lack of knowledge apparent in
their WWII arguments, Russian history and general European history, and by extension,
Mongol history as well. “

On the matter of the rationalization of the Western European etymology of the word “slave”:

“Most Western interpretations of Medieval sources would indicate the Slavic area as being
the main reservoir of slaves in the whole period of the Early Middle Ages, beginning
probably in the 6th century, and with a peak around the 10th. This preference for slaves of
Slavic origin – so strong as to make Slavs the slaves by antonomasia – has been easily
explained: in that period Slavic people were the only ones who were still pagan, and this
detail is most important as it explains why, by choosing them, early medieval slave traders –
mostly Venetian, Genoese and Jewish – did not violate the new principles of the “Societas
Christiana”, introduced by Pope Gregory the Great at the end of the 6th century, according to
which baptized people must be excluded from slavery. What should be noted is that aside
from this being a mere thesis, it is also historically and etymologically inaccurate, and
unconvincing. After all, the Medieval Latin words for “Slav” and “slave” are not
etymologically related. The Medieval Latin word for “slave”, and with it, its root as well,
predate the first sightings and contact of mainland European civilization with the Slavs.
Evolution of the name of Slavs "Sloveni/ Slaveni" comes from PIE *klew (to hear) evolving
into proto-Slavic *slovo/ *slava (word/ fame), finally evolving into Sloveni/ Slaveni (those
glorious/ those who understand each other). Meanwhile, the English word for "slave" comes
from the Latin word "clavis/ clavus" (a key/ nail), which bore the Latin word "inclavare" (to
lock in), ultimately giving rise to the word "sclavus" (slave - "a locked one"), which most
likely entered the English language, along with a major portion of Romance words, with the
Norman invasion. In 1995, for the first time, a proper etymology was expressed, according to
which the Greek word Σκλάβινοι does not stem from the self-name of the Slavs, but from the
Greek verb σκυλεύο - "to extract spoils of war", and resonates in the manner in which Slavs
were enslaved – as prisoners of war. Either way, these etymologies are incomparably more
accurate, and actually substantiated in history and linguistics. Based on this, the self-name of
the Slavs and their Modern Greek name coincided phonetically purely by chance. (F. Kluge,
Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 2002, siehe Sklave and Köbler, Gerhard,
Deutsches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 1995. (Etymological Dictionary of the German
language by G. Gebler, 1995). Section "Slaven").
Further on, the cognate with Sloveni/Slaveni, is the word Sclavinii/ Slabini, a Latin denotes
for Slavic ethnic groups. From a purely historical perspective, Greece and Gaul were Rome’s
main reservoir of slaves for centuries, while the Irish were the main reservoir of slaves for
their Normano-English oppressors for more than half a millennium, and before them, to
Norsemen as well. Dublin was the largest slave market in Western Europe. Its main sources
of supply were the Irish hinterland, Wales and Scotland, while in the Far and the Middle East,
the Turkmen tribes would supply the largest portion of Eurasia with innumerable slaves for
nearly a millennium. Aside from that, just during the earliest stage of the Slavic invasion of
Roman territory south of the Danube (6th century), a fifth of a million Roman citizens
(Procopius) were enslaved by the Sclavenes (early South Slavs) in just one Roman province,
and just during a single raid, the number of their slaves kept growing as more and more
provinces and their capitals fell to the aforementioned Slavs. In reality, the majority of slaves
in the 6th and 7th century were the Christian Romans, not their Slavic captors. Granted the
Slavs didn't enslave their enemies permanently, but they've enslaved them nonetheless, and in
numbers that are substantially greater than the number of Slavs who were enslaved by non-
Slavs during the entirety of the Middle Ages, and it renders the aforementioned non-Slavs as
being more fitting to have their ethnonyms made “synonymous” with slavery.”
On the popular misinformation regarding Polish-Jewish relations:

“Poland is historically known to have been the one European country that tolerated different
religions. They even have an original sect of Polish Muslims who have lived there for
hundreds of years. All the Jews that had escaped Germany hid in Poland. The citizens of
Poland have the world's highest count of individuals who have been recognized by Yad
Vashem as Righteous Among the Nations for saving Jews from extermination during the
Holocaust in World War II. There are 6,706 Polish men and women recognized as Righteous
to this day, over a quarter of the total number of 26,513 awards. It is estimated that hundreds
of thousands of Poles concealed and aided hundreds of thousands of their Polish-Jewish
neighbors. Many of these initiatives were carried out by individuals, but there also existed
organized networks of Polish resistance which were dedicated to aiding Jews – most notably,
the Żegota organization.”
On German medieval immigration:

“More peasants came to Poland during the "settlement on German law" period in 13th and 14th
century than the burghers., and the tradition continued well into the 18th century”.

On the infamous phenomenon of the “Gopnik”:

“Nowadays the more self-aware Slavs do it ironically while the rest of the masses follow
them for mere attention. Cynicism is very prevalent in our culture in the form of the examples
of ironic meme master and thus I've often found myself cosplaying a gopnik as a form of
non-verbal dehumanization. It's also how I dress for most of the parties that I attend, which
grants me an automatic pass among the less intelligent Slavs which are simply entertained by
my looks and the smart ones that understand the true motives behind my wear. Contrary to
common belief the squat is not a hard practice and I've mastered it after just a few tries in
private.”

More on Operation Barbarossa:

“Axis had more men on the frontline. Operation Barbarossa caught Stalin off guard, given
that he had just finished purging his best officers and generals, and the USSR was in the
middle of upgrading their military and industrializing the corelands with the Five-Year plan.
And that is when most of the causalities occurred for the Soviets. During the end of the war,
they're the military power which snowballed once they gained military experience and
technology and industrial capacity. the Germans were only able to beat the Soviets when they
outnumbered them, the moment the Soviets had more men in the field, the Germans faltered,
because the German army was built to quickly overpower and destroy a poorly equipped and
small army, that's what they found in most of europe (minus France and Britain) and what
they fought in the Soviet Union in 41, but the Soviets held them off for long enough to
prepare defenses and build up their military and industrial base, so they could work to the
Germans disadvantages, large numbers of forces, deep defences to prevent breakthrough. The
Soviets did not beat the Germans by throwing men into the grinder, they won by having a
large assault being carried out for a long period of time so that the Germans would be worn
out, so then they could send in the killing blow.”

On German attempts at economically subjugating Poland:

“Large number of directives from the EU are created in a way that projects funded by it can
only be implemented by German companies in Poland. those projects have to also be partially
funded by Poland, and we are talking about millions of euros, they cannot use that money for
anything that can work as an investment. Basically, they are “giving” them money to destroy
their industry, create debt and stop their agriculture. Also, EU funds only account for 2.3% of
Poland's gross domestic product.”
On the point of post-war recovery in both parts of Europe:

“I mean, it's kind of hard to rebuild your nation after it was leveled during a world war with
no money. A large part of why post-war Western Europe succeeded was because the US
poured trillions of dollars into the rebuilding effort (largely so they would be back on their
feet in time to be relevant during a potential war with Russia). Yugoslavia and Poland got
nothing because of the USSR both blocking aid and even in some cases stealing equipment
and supplies to use in their own rebuilding effort.”

On the matter of the self-obsessed pathology of Germanic historians:

“Germanic historians have always been famously self-obsessed, seeing everything through
the Germanic lense, and feel the need to self-insert in the history of nearby non-Germanic
peoples. They interpret and see the fall of Rome as the fall of a degenerate state to be
replaced by the vigorous Germanic race.”

On the matter of an average Yugoslav’s point of view of Yugoslavia:

“I was born in Yugoslavia and lived there for 40 years. It was great. The people were happy,
the rest of the world respected us. We were unique, we said "NO" to the Americans, and we
said "NO" to the Russians (a bit more resounding NO to the Russians). We were truly free.
Yes, there were prisoners, but that was the price to pay. If 30,000+ prisoners in some camp
were a price for 40,000,000+ happy citizens, then it was totally worth it. I remember the great
times. Workers would get free apartments, free cars. We could travel wherever we wanted.
The country was so big and beautiful, that most of the people didn't even want to leave. We
had the sea, the mountains, we had everything. We had some of the best hospitals in Europe.
Tito was a born leader. He distinguished himself in WW2, and even when he was captured by
the Russians, he became a leader of the camp he was in (check Wikipedia). When he died,
people didn't cry because they had to, they cried because they knew he was the one that kept
us together. Yes, he made a few bad decisions, but ultimately, we had 40 or so years of
paradise on earth. It was bliss. His funeral was huge. 100,000 people showed up, and officials
from over 100 countries. I think that alone is an indicator of how much Tito was loved and
respected. How history is being twisted now making it sound like everyone was suffering and
couldn't wait to separate that part of history not being taught in schools to justify all the
horrible crimes being committed during the 90s. brainwashing the kids into believing there
was no such thing as "bratstvo i jedinstvo" and we hated each other all the time, and then
everyone got subverted in one way or another. One of the world's best leaders ever. During
his time, you could literally fall asleep on a bench and no one would even think about robbing
you. Everyone had a house, a car and a job and every family could afford a vacation on the
sea once a year. He imprisoned people who wanted to separate the country and after his
death, they have, and we know how bloody that was. They weren't random people imprisoned
like people suggest here, but people who eventually did split up the country. We live far
worse today than in his time. And yes, you could travel wherever you wanted. We actually
didn't need visa for most countries in the world, but after gaining independence we needed it
for pretty much every country. Just last year, we (Bosnia) gained access to EU without
needing a visa permit. War brought us back at least 50 years in past.”
On the matter of the Western reader and historian’s inability to report Slavic history without
bias:

“This is image board-tier interpretation of history. They ignore every single battle, event or
war that doesn't suit them, and remember quite every one that does. Are they aware that
Poland had Prussia as its hereditary vassal? Are they aware that the Russian army has been to
Paris and Berlin? Are they aware that if we look at some old tribal distribution maps and then
at modern ones, it’s the Slavs that have conquered Germanic and Roman lands, and not the
other way around? They are basically claiming the opposite of how it went, and are behaving
as if it’s insane to even consider the opposite. Or Imperial Russia and modern Russia. Or the
Polish Commonwealth. Or Medieval Bulgaria, twice. Or Serbia, under Dusan or any other of
their notable leaders. Looking at recorded history, from its earliest to today, Slavs have
pushed the Germans westward, and have taken over their land. Their inability to rationally
assess Slavic history is well-known. And they pretend that death camps differ from the
"regular" concentration camps, well, as they point out, all the death camps were in Poland,
far, far away from Allied strategic bombing, which was concentrated in Western Germany.
So, we’re free to guess those deaths weren't caused by the RAF and USAAF? Furthermore,
Poland had the highest Jewish population in Europe, which is totally not something the
Soviets were doing.

On German involvement in the dissolution of Imperial Russia:

“Germany has supplied the Bolsheviks with vital support, a support that resulted in the
success of the October Revolution, unlike the March Revolution, which was launched
without German support.”

On the blunders of Bismarck:

“Turned a nation of poets and artists into factory workers and soldiers to satisfy his fetish for
grand strategy games. Invented modern education, where all children are grouped by their
manufacture date and are asked to study trivialities from the moment a bell rings to the
moment it rings again, prevented Russia from reforming by funding the pan-Slavic
movement and repeatedly getting it into wars with the Ottomans and their allies because of
the Balkan situation, allowed the socialist and proto-communist movements to start and
advance themselves in his state, failed to educate and prepare the man who was essentially
the strongest leader in the region, and had the war come a decade later, perhaps the world.
And finally, couldn't create a big cultural divide between Imperial Russia and France, thus
failing to make it very hard or impossible or those two states to become allies in a coalition
against Germany.”

On the transformation of the Soviet army:

“In the beginning, the Soviet recruits had barely any training and were haphazardly thrown
into combat and suffered staggering losses. By '45, the Red Army was the most effective and
experienced army in the world in both offensive and defensive operations and was unmatched
in terms of strategic/operational planning.”
On Claus von Stauffenberg’s take on the Eastern territories:

“I put my support in the occupation of Poland and its handling by the Nazi regime and the use
of Poles and slave workers to achieve German prosperity as well as German colonization and
the exploitation of Poland. A common belief throughout the German aristocracy was that the
Eastern territories, which is populated predominantly by Poles and party absorbed by Prussia
in partitions of Poland, but taken from the German Empire after World War 1, should be
colonized as the Teutonic Knights had once done in the Middle Ages. I have stated, “It is
essential that we begin systemic colonization in Poland. But I have no fear that this will not
occur.”

On Recent German revisionism regarding Germanisation:

“Frankish kings initiated numerous, yet not always successful, military campaigns to settle
eastern Slavic lands, led campaigns against Slavs included Wendish Crusade against the
Polabian Slavs (or "Wends") of what is now northern and eastern Germany, Livonian
Crusade against Balto-Slavs, Latgallians, Selonians, armed conflict between the Baltic Finns,
Balts and Slavs and their Saxon and Danish intruders to the north and south had been
common for several centuries before the crusade. The Germanic crusaders attacked for
Pomeranians and other Slavs, despite these people having already been successfully
Christianized. The Teutonic Order's attempts to conquer Orthodox Russia. Once the 1st Reich
Germanics conquered these lands, they started "inviting" other Germanics to colonize
conquered territories.”

About Zizka:

“Žižka is considered to be among the greatest military leaders and innovators of all time and
is one of several commanders in history who never lost a battle (alongside Alexander the
Great, Scipio Africanus, Khalid ibn al-Walid, Subutai, the Duke of Marlborough, Bai Qi,
Alexander Suvorov, Fyodor Ushakov, Yi Sun-Shin, and Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck)” .

On the matter of libraries in the Czech Republic:

“The Czech Republic has "the densest library network in the world." The library law was
enacted in 1919 to promote literacy and the Czech language after the country was free of the
German-speaking Austro-Hungarian empire.”

On Russia’ land superiority in the 19th century:

“The truth is that Russia was stronger than Britain for the first half of the "Pax Britannica"
(until the Crimean War) and Germany was for the second one (since Austro-Prussian War)”.

Short summary on the matter of why “nationalists” took over Yugoslavia:

“Army should've staged a coup and Marković should be backed by them. Milošević, Tuđman
and Izetbegović put on trial for treason. “There, problem solved. “In all republics you had a
huge mass of pro-Yugoslav people, or even neutral people. Nationalists were a minority and
the reason they’ve prevailed is because all these three seized powers in all three republics,
starting with Milošević. The Yugoslav National Army was made of spineless people, that's
why Yugoslavia disappeared in bloodshed.”
Further on the phenomenon of gopniks:

“Funny thing is, the lower classes found here, and God forbid, the USA, are infinitely more
degenerate and disgusting than anyone in Russia. It's not hard to cherry-pick some choice
photos of some lower-class Russians and act like that's representative of the entire
population. Just look at the Jeremy Kyle show, for instance, is that a good representation of
the population of the UK?”

On the matter of the partitions of Poland:

“As historian Norman Davies stated, because the balance of power equilibrium was observed,
many contemporary observers accepted explanations of the "enlightened apologists" of the
partitioning state.19th century historians from countries that carried out the partitions, such as
19th century Russian scholar Sergey Solovyov, and their 20th century followers, argued that
partitions were justified, as the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth had degenerated to the
point of being partitioned because the counterproductive principle of liberum veto made
decision-making on divisive issues, such as a wide-scale social reform, virtually impossible.
Solovyov specified the cultural, language and religious break between the supreme and
lowest layers of the society in the east regions of the Commonwealth, where the Byelorussian
and Ukrainian serf peasantry was Orthodox. Russian authors emphasized the historical
connections between Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, as former parts of the medieval old
Russian state where dynasty of Rurikids reigned (Kievan Rus). Thus, Nikolay Karamzin
wrote: “Let the foreigners denounce the partition of Poland: we took what was ours. Russian
historians often stressed that Russia annexed primarily Ukrainian and Belorussian provinces
with Eastern Slavic inhabitants, although many Ruthenians were no more enthusiastic about
Russia than about Poland, and ignoring ethnically Polish and Lithuanian territories also being
annexed on a large scale (including the annexation of the undeniably Polish capital of
Warsaw). A new justification for partitions arose with the Russian Enlightenment, as Russian
writers such as Gavrila Derzhavin, Denis Fonvizin, and Alexander Pushkin stressed
degeneration of Catholic Poland and the need to "civilize" it by its neighbours. Nonetheless
other 19th century contemporaries were much more sceptical, for example, British jurist Sir
Robert Phillimore discussed the partition as a violation of international law, German jurist
Heinrich Bernhard Oppenheim presented similar views. Other older historians who
challenged such justifications for the Partitions included French historian Jules Michelet,
British historian and politician Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay, and
Edmund Burke. Edmund Burke was alone in criticizing the immorality of this act. More
recent studies claim that partitions happened when the Commonwealth had been showing the
beginning signs of a slow recovery and see the last two partitions as an answer to
strengthening reforms in the Commonwealth and the potential threat they represented to its
neighbours. Several scholars focused on the economic motivations of the partitioning powers.
Jerzy Czajewski wrote that the Russian peasants were escaping from Russia to the Polish–
Lithuanian Commonwealth in significant enough numbers to become a major concern for the
Russian Government sufficient to play a role in its decision to partition the Commonwealth.
Increasingly in the 18th century until the partitions solved this problem, Russian armies
raided territories of the Commonwealth, officially to recover the escapees, but in fact
kidnapping many locals. Hajo Holborn noted that Prussia aimed to take control of the
lucrative Baltic grain trade. “

On the origin of the Visegrad group:

“The name of the Group is derived, and the place of meeting selected, from a meeting of the
Bohemian (Czech), Polish, and Hungarian rulers in Visegrád in 1335. Charles I of Hungary,
Casimir III of Poland, and John of Bohemia agreed to create new commercial routes to
bypass the staple port Vienna and obtain easier access to other European markets. The
recognition of Czech sovereignty over the Duchy of Silesia was also confirmed. A second
meeting took place in 1339, where it was decided that after the death of Casimir III of
Poland, the son of Charles I of Hungary, Louis I of Hungary, would become King of Poland
provided that Casimir did not have a son.”

On Russian military capability:

“The matter is that such comparison is very much misleading as military strength is not in
quantity of hardware and manpower but it is in quality and performance of hardware and
manpower. It's quite impossible to evaluate and forecasts outcome in case of conflict. Very
important things are how many troops and hardware, as well as what kind of troops and
hardware will be engaged initially and how good is logistics. In case of USA attacking Russia
from EU territory, USA would be defeated in a matter of days. Reason being is that USA
cannot ever bring that many assets as Russia can because it is her land and reserves for
deployment are just few minutes away by means of mass transport. USA cannot do that.
Russia has different military doctrine than USA as it can mobilise millions of young people
who already finished conscript service and have sufficient knowledge and experience to be
reactivated in a matter of couple of weeks. USA as attacking side would have to engage large
number of aircrafts and they would become easy pray for Russian Air defence forces. After
destroying few hundreds of USA airplanes and in particular their pride F-22 and F-35 with
incomparably cheaper S-400 missiles USA would be forced to seek peace agreement with
Russia. Russia has very strong artillery and multiple launchers which fire so called
thermobaric munition which is causing devastation seen and comparable to nuclear devices
only with hour radioactive fallout. USA would never venture such stupidity as they have to
be aware that Russia is incomparably better Army than all NATO together. Russia with
laughable small military force in Syria achieved in three months of her military campaign
more than 60 members of USA led coalition in 18 months of permanent action.”

On Slavic ability to dominate in the field of mathematics:

“Rather, it seems the structure of inflected Slavic languages are conducive to developing
mathematical thinking--and related disciplines, like logic (especially formal logic) and more
recently the computer sciences. In particular, the numerous noun cases require Slavic
speakers to decline nouns and adjectives depending on if it serves as a subject or object (and
direct vs indirect), its location, if it's been spoken to, whether it is the instrument of another
noun, or modifies another noun. In English (and modern Romance languages) this is done
through word order and helping words like prepositions and pronouns. Three genders and
(effectively) two plurals complicate things further. From studying Calculus and Statistics in
Bulgaria and living/working in Poland, I would agree with the previous responded that there
is tremendous respect for mathematical skills, though the teaching methods aren't particular
outstanding. “

On the matter of rising Islamic tendencies and rampant Turkophilia among Bosnian Muslims:

“Za širenje otrova 'turkofilije' (muslimanskim) nacionalnim tijelom odgovorne su političke

elite tog naroda, koje su doprinijele povampirenju 'feudalnog islama' nakon sloma
Jugoslavije. Feudalni islam se ogleda u vladavini nekoliko porodica, koje su 'Bogom dane' da
budu prve i u vjeri i u politici, dok su svi ostali, niža vrsta ljudi . Naravno da bi u tome bili
uspješni treba im i pomoć koju su dobili od diktatora Erdoana, jednog od lidera terorističke
organizacije Muslimansko bratstvo, koja je odgovorna za sve loše što se danas dešava i
muslimanima u Bosni, ali i u cijelom svijetu. Zbog ovoga smatram ovaj intervju jednim
hrabrim i pozitivnim korakom u oslobađanju “Bošnjaka” od podaničkog mentaliteta koji im
nameću njihove političke i vjerske elite okupljene oko SDA.”

On German looting of Eastern Europe:

“Western Germans, and with them, Western Germany, ended the war unscathed with a
massive amount of looted factory equipment from Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary,
Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. That was not liable for reparations, which facilitated their
economic miracle. In conclusion, every major German city deserved the fate of Dresden for
what the Germans had done earlier in the war.”

On intentionally overlooked and ignored geopolitical and historical truths:

“Countries that were under influence of Roman Empire had a head-start. They were elevated
to that level - they haven’t achieved it by themselves. Even in the late Medieval period, the
differences were almost non-existent. At one point, Poland was the fourth most powerful
country in the known world and the only country in history that ever conquered a unified
Russian state. As I said, the poorest region was always Scandinavia. While we were ruling
over a territory of one million square kilometres, they were but merely forming relatively
coherent states.”

On the American dependency on globalism:

“And what is this new printed dollar good for? If Russia will not sell you crops and oil, or
rocket engines, or titanium for airplanes, and China won’t sell you everything else? How
local is your weapon production? From where does USA gets pure silicon for electronic
production? The American economy is only dominant when it operates on a global scale.”

On the USA’s initial involvement in the breakup of Yugoslavia:

“Zimmermann was the guy who convinced Alija Izetbegovic to renegotiate from the Lisbon
Agreement to partition Bosnia and Herzegovina according to ethnic lines. Karadzic and
Boban had already agreed to it and if Izetbegovic had not pulled out, it may have averted the
war in Bosnia”.

On the portrayal of Poles:

“The book Hollywood's War with Poland shows how Hollywood's World War II (and
onwards) negative portrayal of Polish people as being "backward", helped condition the
American people to see Polish people as having inferior intelligence in the 20th century. The
book supports the Polish American Journal's assertion that Hollywood historically was fertile
ground for anti-Polish prejudice, based on its Left-wing/Soviet sympathies.”

On Zizek:

“Zizek is a Marxist philosopher who is the most famous communist and philosopher in the
world because he's very prolific and writes about pop culture. His main arguments focus on
the way in which individuals rationalize and accept the inherent brutality of capitalist society,
and how everybody's behavior is affected by capitalism. He also hates pretty much everyone.
His biggest opponents are left-liberals, conservatives, and pro-Soviet communists. Zizek's
well-known for his mannerisms. He's generally very casual, being able to explain Lacanian
philosophy in plainspoken terms, and is always sniffing and pulling at his shirt. He's got a lot
of nervous tics.”

On Russia’ autocracy:

“Russia is an excellent example of how geography determines destiny. There is a reason why
Russia constantly degenerates into autocracy and the USSR was no exception. The reason
why Russia's geopolitical strategy ever since Ivan the Terrible has primarily remained the
same - for the Russian people to survive they needed large tracts of land to fall back on. This
was their defence in the event of invasion as Russia's two most vulnerable areas are easily
accessible via the European Plain. Examples of course include Napoleon and Hitler who both
invaded Russia's most vulnerable areas - others are of course the Polish and Swedes. In order
to maintain survival, Russia has to fall back and if you look at their colonization process, they
stopped every time they met a major geographical barrier and then constructed cities. Now
these cities were so far apart and so isolated that they lacked the ability to be self-sufficient
and all are reliant upon Moscow. Moscow is Russia. Without Moscow there is no Russia. I
know it seems silly, but think about it. The Government has to control these ethnically
diverse regions, the distances of which between them increases exponentially (Nizhny
Novgorod, Kazan, Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk but each supplies the other in a chain), - the
logistics are mind boggling to comprehend. Russia has to be autocratic, it has to follow a
'realist ideology' in regards to the international system in order to maintain its very survival.”

On the Polish Golden Age:

“The Polish Golden Age refers to the period from the late 15th century Jagiellon Poland to
the death of the last of the Jagiellons, Sigismund August in 1572. Some historians claim that
the Golden Age had lasted until the mid-17th century, when in 1648 the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth was ravaged by the Khmelnytsky Uprising, and Swedish invasion. During its
Golden Age, the Commonwealth became one of the largest kingdoms of Europe, stretching
from modern-day Estonia, to Moldavia and Silesia. Its army was able to defend the realm
against numerous Teutonic knights, Turkish, Swedish, Russian, and Tatar invasions. The
country prospered thanks to its enormous grain, wood and salt exports. In the 16th century,
the area of the Commonwealth reached almost 1 million km, with a population of 11 million.
Poland-Lithuania was a political, military and economic power for more than 220 years. Its
goods were transported to Western Europe via Baltic Sea ports of Gdańsk, Elbląg, Riga,
Memel and Königsberg. The Commonwealth had several major cities, such as Warsaw,
Kraków, Poznań, Lviv, Vilnius, Toruń and Kiev, and its economic development made it
possible for the culture to flourish. During the Golden Age the Commonwealth was regarded
as one of the most powerful European states. It had a unique system of government, known as
the Golden Liberty, in which all nobles (szlachta), regardless of economic status, were
considered to have equal legal status and enjoyed extensive legal rights and privileges. One
of its features was the Liberum veto, used for the first time in 1653. Nobility, which consisted
of both szlachta and magnates, made up approximately 8-10% of the population. In the early
16th century, the situation for peasants was relatively good, but they deteriorated over the
course of the time.”

On the matter of Prussian deportations:

“The Prussian deportations (or Prussian expulsions, Polish: rugi pruskie) were mass
expulsions of ethnic Poles (and, to a lesser extent, Jews) from Prussia in between 1885–1890.
More than 30,000 Poles with Austrian or Russian citizenship were deported from the Prussian
part of divided Poland to the respective Austrian and Russian parts. The deportations were
carried out in an inhumane way, and were based on ethnic discrimination principles. The
county-wide expulsion was condemned by the Polish public as well as the federal German
parliament. The expulsion also contributed to the worsening of the German-Russian relations.
In the aftermath, Poles without German citizenship were again allowed to work and reside in
the German Empire in all seasons but the winter. It is regarded as an early example of ethnic
cleansing. Agriculture in the eastern provinces of Prussia was to a high degree based on
large-area manors (often requisitioned from their formerly Polish owners) and run by German
junkers, who employed thousands of migrating Poles from the Russian and Austrian part of
partitioned Poland. Also, the growing industrial region of Upper Silesia attracted workers
from economically backward areas. At the same time, parts of the local German and Polish
population migrated in search of work to more industrialized western areas of Germany
(Ostflucht). Although no anti-German political activity among the Polish migrants was ever
noted, the resulting increase of the Polish population alarmed nationalist German circles,
including Germany's chancellor Otto von Bismarck. On 26 March 1885, the ministry of
internal affairs of Prussia ordered its provincial authorities to expel abroad all ethnic Poles
and Jews holding Russian citizenship. In July 1885, the expulsion order was extended to
include Polish Austrian citizens also. Additionally, the authorities were obliged to watch, that
in the future no "undesirable foreigners" would settle on those territories. The order was
executed upon all non-Prussian citizens regardless of their long-term residence or previous
service in the Prussian Army, and despite their state of health, age or sex. The expellees were
"driven in mass towards the eastern border under blows of gendarmes' rifle butts". Fatal
incidents were being reported, as the expulsions were carried in winter time. In the initial
months nearly 26,000 persons were expelled from eastern provinces of Prussia, mainly
workers and craftsmen employed there. The expulsions were continued in subsequent years.
Until 1890 the number of expellees exceeded 30000, and the border of Prussia was closed to
all migrants of Polish ethnicity. The formerly good relations between Germany and Russia
worsened in the 1880’s due to growing nationalist trends in Russian politics. German
minorities in the Russian Empire, including Baltic and Russian-born Germans as well as
recent German immigrants, faced negative sentiments among both the government and the
public supporting the ideas of Pan-Slavism. With that in mind, the German ambassador in
Russia, Schweinitz, advised Bismarck to abstain from further expulsions, anticipating that
they would only provoke the supporters of Pan-Slavism and trigger repressions against all
German settlers in Russia. The expulsions had been met with disapproval inside the
government circles of Russia. Dmitry Tolstoy, a conservative, and the minister of internal
affairs who tried to procure a plausible reception for those events in Russia, acknowledged
Otto von Bismarck's Anti-Polish sentiment and unofficially gave ambassador Schweinitz his
advice that Bismarck had committed a grave mistake, as such extreme measures were
unnecessary. Also, Nikolay Giers, the minister of foreign affairs of Russia, stated that
Bismarck – by his own conduct – had aggravated already hostile feelings existing towards
German colonists in Russia, had set a bad example to be followed, and had spread the seeds
of new ethnic antagonisms in the future. Bismarck himself expressed to ambassador
Schweinitz his disappointment, stating that "the Russians showed less satisfaction because of
our expulsions than I had expected". Soon afterward, the Russian government imposed legal
restrictions on acquisition and lease of land by Germans in Russia, thus limiting the German
colonisation movement in the Russian-controlled part of Poland. Contrary to Bismarck's
original intentions, the expulsion contributed to the worsening of German-Russian relations
and the erosion of their long term cooperation – resulting in a shift in Russia's external policy
which finally led to the creation of the Franco-Russian Alliance soon transformed into Triple
Entente, which fought the German Empire during World War I in 1914–1918.”

On the matter of geopolitical and historical advantages of Western over Eastern Europe:

Eastern Europe: less access to sea, invasions from the Eurasian steppes in the early Middle
Ages (Mongols, various Turkic peoples), being stuck between HRE, ERE, Russia and the
Ottomans, 50 years of Soviet-dominated Communism.
Western Europe: more coastline and access to the ocean, countries defended by more
mountains, rivers and seas, centers of trade are closer, colonial empires, American influence
after the warp, rotected by Eastern Europe from the Invasions from the East.

On the matter of Russia’s “Westernization”:

“Peter the Great was, first and foremost, eager to do away with Russia’s reputation as an
Asiatic land and to propel his new empire onto the political stage of Western Europe. One of
the many tools he would use to reach this goal was upper class culture; he believed that
forcing selected features of western fashion, education, and language onto the nobility would
hasten Russia’s rise to international prestige. In 1697, he began to send nobles on compulsory
trips abroad to England, Holland, and Italy. While the tsar primarily designed these
expeditions for naval training, he also encouraged the noblemen to learn about the arts of the
west. Furthermore, Peter prioritized sending Russian natives as opposed to foreign
expatriates; he was intent on “breeding” a new nobility that conformed to western customs
but represented the Slavic people as a whole. When the travellers returned to Moscow, Peter
tested them on their training, insisting on further education for those whose accumulated
knowledge was unsatisfactory. By 1724, he had established – for the purpose of scientific
study and discovery – the Academy of Sciences, which he modelled after “the ones in Paris,
London, Berlin and other places”. Peter’s westernizing efforts became quite radical after
1698, when he returned from his expedition through Europe, known as the Grand Embassy.
Upon arriving, Peter summoned the nobility to his court and personally shaved almost every
beard in the room. In 1705 he decreed a beard tax on all ranked men in Moscow, and ordered
certain officers to seek out noble beards and shave them on sight. He only allowed the
peasants, priests, and serfs to retain the ingrained and religious Russian tradition of wearing
beards, which the Orthodox populace considered an essential aspect of their duty to convey
the image of God. He also reformed the clothing of the nobility, abandoning the long-sleeved,
traditional Muscovite robes for European fashion. Beginning in 1699 the tsar decreed strict
dress requirements borrowing from German, Hungarian, French, and British styles, fining
any noblemen who failed to obey. Peter himself, usually sporting German dress and a
trimmed moustache, acted as a prime example. While the nobility universally followed
Peter’s fashion preferences at court, they greatly resented these styles, which they saw as
blasphemous. Away from St. Petersburg, very few noblemen followed Peter’s guidelines and
enforcement was lax. Peter has also demanded changes in mannerisms and language among
nobles. In order to supply Russians with a basic set of “proper” morals and habits, he ordered
publication of manuals on Western etiquette. The most popular of these was The Honourable
Mirror of Youth, or A Guide to Social Conduct Gathered from Various Authors, a
compilation of rules of conduct from numerous European sources, initially published in St.
Petersburg in 1717. He also encouraged the learning of foreign languages, especially French,
which was the foremost political and intellectual language of Europe at the time. For the
nobility, these changes felt even more forced than the fashion regulations. As with clothing,
there was uniform acceptance of Western mannerisms at court but general disregard for them
outside of St. Petersburg. When Catherine II ascended the throne, she quickly made her
political and philosophical opinions clear in the “Instruction” of 1767, a lengthy document
which she prepared for the nobility, drawing largely from and even plagiarizing ideas from
the west, especially those of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The point she emphasized first and
foremost was that Russia was a truly European state, and her reforms of the court and
education reflect this belief. While Catherine was primarily preoccupied with impressing
westerners (especially the philosophes, with whom she corresponded in writing), in doing so
she also made significant efforts to educate the nobility and expose them to western
philosophy and art. She designed an imperial court in the style of Louis XIV, entertaining the
nobility with performances of western theatre and music. She encouraged understanding of
French, German, and English languages so that nobles could read classic, historical, and
philosophical literature from the west. For the first time in the history of the Russian court,
“intellectual pursuits became fashionable”. When foreigners visited the court, Catherine
expected the noblemen and their ladies to flaunt not only their western appearance but also
their ability to discuss current events in western languages. Catherine also made specific
reforms in institutional education that pushed the nobility’s culture further westward. She
based Russian education on that of Austria, importing German textbooks and adopting in
1786 a standardized curriculum to be taught in her newly created public schools. While many
members of the lower classes were allowed into these schools, Catherine hoped that they
could become educated enough to rise through the meritocratic Table of Ranks and
eventually become nobles themselves. Catherine also established the Society for the
Translation of Foreign Books, “to bring enlightenment to those Russians who could not read
either French or German.” It is clear that, like Peter I, Catherine the Great desired to construct
a new nobility, a “new race,” which would both resemble western noblemen and prove
knowledgeable in discussions of modern issues.

On the matter of Russia’s longevity:

“The fact that they're still capable of remaining a world power after being allegedly
eviscerated by a massive overflow of sanctions speaks volumes of their civilization. Also,
you're sorely misled if you believe that Russia will collapse because of that "staggering 1%
recession. ”

On the matter of anti-Polish sentiments:

“We're talking of a tradition of intentionally misrepresenting Poland in order to justify the

Partitions. If people knew more about her, then they would naturally start seeing German
claims on its territory as nothing more but primitive expansionism. Also, it's not surprising
that all countries with a sizable German ancestry are negatively predisposed towards Poland,
even though they're practically unaware of its existence.”

On the matter of the dissolution of Yugoslavia:

“G17 team functioned through a network of Yugoslavian politicians who worked with the
World Bank to devastate the Yugoslav economy. They ended up controlling the Yugoslavian
economy and impose their policies on the government. These are the policies that abolish
services (e.g., free medical), force businesses into bankruptcy, and allow the bankrupt
businesses to be taken over by wealthy people. This is how public businesses got privatized.
Yugoslavia then went into a recession because of sweeping reforms that were largely
implemented because of the World Bank and IMF. Rising tensions are a result of the
recession. Yugoslavia asked George Bush Sr. for aid, but he openly refused. In 1990’s, Bush
pressured Congress to pass a bill for cutting all aid to Yugoslavia. The bill also said that if
individual Yugoslav republics wanted aid, they would have to engage in free and fair
elections, which was exactly what happened. There is nothing in international law or
diplomatic practice that justifies secession from an existing state on grounds of “self-
determination”. There is great confusion and hypocrisy on this point. First one can point to
comparisons: Why did the United States not support the struggle of the Basques against
Spain, which has been going on much longer? Why did they not support Corsicans against
France, Scottish nationalists against Britain, the Kurds against Turkey – a violent struggle
with deep historic roots, including Western promises to Kurds after World War I? Why did
they not support the separatist “Padania” movement that was growing about the same time in
northern Italy, seeking separation from the poorer south of Italy – a movement that had a
great deal in common with the Slovenian separatist movement? The answer is obvious, the
United States does not support separatist movements in countries they consider their allies.
The targets are either countries they consider rivals, like Russia or China, or countries that are
currently not strong enough to resist, and where they can obtain totally dependent client states
from the breakup – which is what happened with Yugoslavia. Second there are the simple
facts of the matter. History, to start with. Former Yugoslavia was not formed by conquest, but
by a voluntary association after World War I as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.
The Croats and Serbs speak essentially the same south Slavic language, and Slovenian is
quite similar. This association was sought by Croatian leaders who wished to leave Austro-
Hungarian rule and who actually coined the word “Yugoslavia”, meaning land of southern
Slavs. Since Serbia already existed as an independent country, Serb leaders were wary of this
union, but accepted it under urging from the Western powers, France and Britain.
After Tito’s death in 1980, Yugoslavia entered an uneasy phase of political transition, which
was distorted by severe, yet short-term economic regression caused by inflation. Since Tito’s
method of rule had been to respond to unrest by decentralization rather than by
democratization, the local Communist parties in each republic of the federal state, as well as
the autonomous provinces within Serbia, enjoyed considerable autonomy. Rivalry between
the party bureaucracies undermined national unity. The dynamic thus tended toward
dissolution rather than democratization. This trend was encouraged by outside forces
(German and Austrian organizations represented by the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire,
Otto Von Hapsburg, who was very active in this phase) which supported secession of the
parts of Yugoslavia which had belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Empire before World War
I, Croatia and Slovenia. Now, assuming that “self-determination” would lead to dissolution of
the federation, there was the crucial issue of how this would be done. The Serbs interpreted
the constitution to argue that Yugoslavia was a political union of three peoples – Serbs,
Croats and Slovenes, who would have to negotiate the terms of secession. The Slovenes and
especially the Croats maintained that the constituent units were the “republics” in the
boundaries set for them by Tito during World War II, which left sizeable Serb populations in
both Croatia (up to 20%) and Bosnia-Herzegovina (a relative majority up until the 1971
census). Germany persuaded the United States and the European Union to accept the Croatian
claim without ever seriously considering the Serbian argument. This was unacceptable to the
Serbs in Croatia who had been persecuted by Nazi-sponsored independent Croatia during
World War II, and whose “self-determination” was thereby denied. This was the cause of the
civil war in Croatia.

Both Slovenia and Croatia enjoyed full equality and autonomy within Yugoslavia. In no way
could they be considered oppressed minorities. Tito was a Croat/Slovenian as was the last
functioning prime minister of Yugoslavia, Ante Markovic, not to mention a disproportionate
number of senior officers in the Yugoslav armed forces. As the richest part of Yugoslavia,
Slovenia’s desire to secede was based almost solely on the desire to “jump the queue” and
join the rich EU ahead of the rest of the country, which it succeeded in doing. The Croatian
secessionist movement was nationalistic, with strong racist overtones, and was strongly
supported by the Croatian diaspora with crucial political influence in Germany and in
Washington (in the office of Senator Bob Dole). In the absence of any legal justification for
non-negotiated secession, nationalist leaders in both Slovenia and Croatia provoked units of
the Yugoslav army stationed in their territory and used the inevitable response as their
justification for seceding. This succeeded only because it was supported by Western
governments and media – otherwise the Yugoslav army would have held the country
together. Instead, the collapsing Yugoslav army effort to preserve the federation, as it was
supposed to do, was denounced as a “Serbian invasion”. Serbian president Slobodan
Milosevic handled this crisis badly, but he did not, as accused, instigate the dissolution of
Yugoslavia. Even before the Third Reich, the government of Kaiser Wilhelm and even more
the democratic Weimar Republic supported self-determination of ethnic minorities, and the
Federal Republic of Germany continues to do so today, for reasons of national interest and
ideology. The “revenge” against Serbia, and detachment of former Austro-Hungarian
territories within Yugoslavia, harks back to World War I. Of course, the Third Reich cut
Yugoslavia into pieces, and on that point the 1991 German policy was more than disturbingly
reminiscent, it was essentially the same. Germany has reasons for wanting to bring Slovenia
and Croatia into its own sphere of influence. In a sense I am more critical of Western
governments which followed the German policy without bothering or daring to evaluate the
situation clearly for themselves. As this turned out to be disastrous, they had to blame the
devil Milosevic for everything, in order to cover their own mistakes. I think this support was
the product of a number of factors. One, pointed out by former State Department official
George Kenney, was the influence of media reports, in turn heavily influenced by a
propaganda campaign run by Ruder Finn public relations agency on behalf of the government
of Croatia, and later the Bosnian Muslims, which succeeded in presenting the Serbs as “new
Nazis”. This public relations campaign was hugely successful with the public and politicians
alike. American foreign policy-making can be vulnerable to the propaganda of lobbies, and
the Croatian lobby was active and influential. The Bosnian lobby was smaller but very well
connected, notably through Mohammed Sacirbey, the American son of a colleague of
Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic who chose him to be Bosnia’s ambassador to the
United States. There was a natural class affinity between American officials like Richard
Holbrooke and the Bosnian Muslims, who had been the upper class under the Ottoman
Empire and presented themselves as more anti-communist than the Serbs. A second element
was that since Germany was emerging as the sponsor of Croatia, the United States could have
its own client state by supporting the Bosnian Muslims. Some US leaders thought that siding
with the Muslim party in Bosnia would make a good impression in the Muslim world,
counterbalancing US support to Israel. The late influential Congressman Tom Lantos, who
was chairman of the House foreign affairs committee, called US support for the Bosnian
Muslims and Kosovo independence “just a reminder to the predominantly Muslim-led
governments in this world” that “the United States leads the way for creation of a
predominantly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe.” Support to Bosnian Muslims
was strongly advocated by the pro-Israel neo-conservatives. It is hard to believe that neo-con
“guru” Richard Perle served as advisor to Muslim leader Izetbegovic at the Dayton peace
talks with no private agenda of his own. The Clinton administration found it natural to do a
favour to the Afghan mujahedin (which then included Osama bin Laden), whom they had
supported and used against the Soviet Union, by helping them fight the Orthodox Christian
Serbs in the Bosnian civil war. But perhaps the main cause should be seen in the main effect:
to reassert United States supremacy in Europe. The August 1995 NATO bombing “marked a
historic development in post-Cold War relations between Europe and the United States”,
wrote Richard Holbrooke in his memoirs, citing columnist William Pfaff who alone seemed
to get the point: “The United States today is again Europe’s leader: there is no other.”
(Richard Holbrooke, To End a War, Random House, 1998, p.101.) By the policy of an “even
playing field”, the United States created a stalemate between the Bosnian parties which
allowed Holbrooke to take charge of what he called “the Bosnian end game” at Dayton. The
United States was able to pose as “the indispensable nation”.

On the matter of the “Srebrenica phenomenon” and the political implications behind it:

“First of all, I think these accusations are designed primarily to distract public attention from
the main focus of my writing on Yugoslavia, and in particular my book, Fools’ Crusade:
Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions. That focus is political. As the title indicates, my
book is not about Srebrenica. It is about the historical and political background, and the
deception and self-deception involved in media coverage and Western policy-making that led
to the illegal NATO war of aggression in 1999. The only reason I wrote about Srebrenica at
all is that I could not very well avoid the subject, but I stated from the start I was not writing
about what happened at Srebrenica (on which I claim no special knowledge) but about the
political uses of it. I am not a war correspondent but a political analyst. The trouble is that
some people do not welcome political analysis of the Balkan conflicts, and use Srebrenica to
ban it. If mothers are weeping, how can anyone engage in such a heartless exercise as
political analysis? Judging complex events solely on the basis of images and emotions, which
are often deceptive, is infantile. But we are living in a period of infantile regression. For
instance, the wives and mothers of the men who were killed deserve sympathy, but is their
individual grief any greater if their son was one of several hundred or one of several
thousand? Why this insistence on a particular number, which has not been clearly proved?
Isn’t it possible, and even likely, that the genuine grief of mourning women is exploited for
political ends? How many people are in a position to know exactly what happened at
Srebrenica? Where are the documents, where are the photographs? Yet people who know
nothing are ready to consider it scandalous if someone says openly, “I don’t know exactly
what happened.” I do know that from the very start of the Yugoslav tragedy, there were
significant massacres of Serb civilians (for instance, in the town of Gospic in Croatia) that
were studiously ignored in the West. But I do not care to engage in competitive victimhood.
As for Srebrenica, certainly any execution of prisoners is a war crime and deserves
punishment, even if the figure of 8,000 is certainly exaggerated, since it includes men who
died in ambush while trying to escape, or even men who actually did escape. But whatever
the number of victims, a single massacre of military-age men while sparing women and
children cannot in my opinion be correctly described as “genocide” – unless the term
“genocide” is redefined to fit the single case of Srebrenica. And this is precisely what was
done by the International Criminal Tribunal on former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. In
order to convict General Radislav Krstic (who was not even present at the scene) of
complicity in “genocide”, the ICTY judges ruled in August 2001 that killing a large number
of Muslim men from Srebrenica was “genocide” because of the “patriarchal” nature of their
society. Women and children were too insignificant in such a patriarchal society to matter!
This preposterous verdict simply confirmed the obvious fact that ICTY is working for those
who set it up, choose its judges and pay its expenses: that is, essentially, NATO. It is there to
justify the NATO interpretation of the conflicts in former Yugoslavia, by putting the entire
burden of blame on the Serbs. Unless an Orwellian future bans free historical inquiry, I am
confident that my critical appraisal of ICTY will be justified by history.”
On the reason why NATO carried out the bombing of Yugoslavia:

“The essential reason was to save NATO from obsolescence after the collapse of the Soviet
bloc, whose supposed threat had been its ostensible raison d’être. The United States came up
with a new “humanitarian mission”, and the large-scale NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in
1999 served to prove that NATO could get away with it, without United Nations
authorization. This was “the war to start wars”. It is regularly cited by apologists as “the good
war” which proves that “human rights” constitute the most efficient excuse for aggression. It
was indeed a perfect little war, waged safely from the air with all the casualties on the
ground, whether Serb or Albanian.”

On United Kingdom’s involvement in Yugoslavia’s dissolution:

“Equally shameful. The British foreign office certainly had experts able to understand the
complexities of the Yugoslav situation, and indeed the conservative government hesitated.
Lord Carrington and then Lord Owen, if supported, might have brokered an early peace in
Bosnia. But Tony Blair preferred to strut the stage of “humanitarian intervention”, and most
of the left swallowed the wild tale according to which the world’s most powerful military
alliance was henceforth motivated by sentimental concern for the separatist underdog.”

On the matter of the case of Milosevic’s trial:

“That trial exonorated Slobodan Milosevic. He defended himself, and his country, with great
courage and intelligence, and successfully disproved most of the charges against him, even
though he died before the defence could make its case. The ICTY was set up largely to
convict Milosevic, and would surely have found a way to do so regardless of the evidence.
His death spared them that trouble. Of course, Western media failed totally to report fairly on
the proceedings.”

On the matter of “Greater Serbia”:

“Testifying at the Milosevic trial, Vojislav Šešelj stated clearly that Milosevic was not in
favour of Greater Serbia, and that he had slandered him politically for that very reason,
because Šešelj himself did favour Greater Serbia. The meaning of “Greater Serbia” is
complicated, and I have dealt with it in my book, “Fools’ Crusade”. But Serbs were divided
on the matter, and Milosevic for one did not advocate a “Greater Serbia”. Milosevic was
competing with politicians such as Vuk Draskovic and Zoran Djindjic, whom the West
considers “democratic”, but who were far more nationalistic than he was. No Serbian
politician could be totally indifferent to Serb populations cut off from Serbia by the
disintegration of Yugoslavia. Nevertheless, starting in 1992, Milosevic signed onto a series of
potential peace accords that left Serbs outside of shrinking Yugoslavia, and were clearly
incompatible with a greater Serbia. I do not presume to attach “appropriate levels of blame”
to the various Yugoslav parties. I simply point out certain facts, and the only blame that really
interests me is that of the Western powers and especially of the United States. That is my
responsibility as an American citizen. It is the United States that exploited the tragedy to
strengthen NATO, and the people of Yugoslavia who suffered and are still suffering.”
On the matter of ineptness of the ex-Yugoslav republics:

“In general, secession is beneficial to the bureaucrats. Someone who was only a minor
official in a large country gets to be Cabinet Minister, or ambassador. So, secession was a
good thing for members of the bureaucracy in each state. It has also been good for a minority
who live off crime and corruption. For the rest of the population, it was beneficial primarily
to Slovenia, whose leaders succeeded in getting into the European Union ahead of the others.
Of course, it was not beneficial to the small population of Yugoslavs who were not ethnic
Slovenians and found themselves living in Slovenia without any civil status. Croatia has the
advantage of strong German support, but so far this has not yielded all the economic benefits
hoped for. Most of the Serb population has been driven out, which is of course satisfying to
the racist Croat nationalists, and does not seem to disturb the Western leftist multiculturalists.
Otherwise, people who once were citizens of an independent, medium-sized European
country find themselves confined in small mutually hostile states, dependent on outside
powers and poorer than before. Outside intervention has served to exacerbate ethnic hatreds,
and continues to do so, notably in Bosnia and Kosovo. The political situation of most of the
successor states is precarious and further tragedy is almost certain.”

On the matter of British animosity towards Serbia and Serbs:

“The British are obsessed about destroying Serbia literally from the moment they've learned
about the Serbian uprising and attempt at liberation from the Ottoman empire. There is no
greater falsehood on the subject than their manipulations. Even their translation is incorrect in
order to paint a wrong picture. Simply put: their documentaries are literally conspiracy
theories about degenerate Slavs and Communists that eat babies and seek to destroy the West,
which is a huge noble virgin of ultimate purity.”

Further arguments against German nationalists:

“Fact: The Germans killed at least 20 Million civilians during the Invasion of the East,
destroying as many as 70,000 villages and towns in the USSR alone, not even counting the
millions of Poles, Serbs and killed, which as a proportion of their population were even more
devastating.
Fact: This was all part of General Plan East, which was already being carried out even during
the war, hence the abnormally high civilian casualties and material losses.
Fact: National Socialist ideology, using cultural rivalry and pseudo-science, claimed that
Slavs were genetically inferior Untermensch. Hitler himself proclaimed his belief in this
aspect of race theory in Mein Kampf. These are all facts, based off of verified statistics,
numbers, and the heavy documentation of Germany's Slavic genocide in Eastern Europe.
Even during the Nuremberg trials, they never denied what they did, they either said they just
followed orders or were quite proud of the men, women and children they killed. To those
who’ve said this wasn’t about race, jere’s a quote from Mein Kampf: “The eastern region
must lose the character of the Asiatic steppe; it must be Europeanized! It is for this purpose
that we are building great highways to the southern tip of the Crimea and to the Caucasus.
German cities established along these roadways will stretch like a string of pearls, and around
these will be German settlements. The two or three million people we need [for this program]
can be found quicker than we think. We will take them from Germany, the Scandinavian
lands, Western Europe, and America. Chances are that I will not live to see this, but in twenty
years twenty million people will inhabit this territory. In three hundred years we will have a
blossoming parkland of extraordinary beauty!
As for the people indigenous to the area, we will be sure to select those of importance. We
will remove the destructive Jews and Slavs entirely. We will not enter Russian cities. They
must die out completely. There is only one task: Germanization through the introduction of
Germans to the area and to treat the original inhabitants like Indians. I intend to stay this
course with ice-cold determination. I feel myself to be the executor of the will of History.
What people think of me at present is all of no consequence. Never have I heard a German
who has bread to eat express concern that the ground where the grain was grown had to be
conquered by the sword. We eat Canadian wheat and never think of the Indians.”

On the matter of the brutalization of civilians on the Eastern Front:

“In the Soviet Union alone all estimates regarding the rape of Soviet women by the
Wehrmacht vary from 3 to 10 million incidents, with between 750,000 and 1,000,000
children being born as a result. Both armies had penalty for rape but in reality, rapes by
Germans of non-German women were not taken seriously, nor was it punishable by death,
especially in the eastern European territories.”

Sources:

“1) Bielanski, David (2004). "Gender and the World Wars: An Integrated Epoch of Change"
2) R. Mühlhäuser, Eroberungen: sexuelle Gewalttaten und intime Beziehungen deutscher
Soldaten in der Sowjetunion 1941-1945
3) Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal (there is PDF
to download)
4) Askin, Kelly Dawn. "War crimes against women: prosecution in international war crimes
tribunals"
5) Jacobsen, Hans-Adolf (1968). "The Kommisssarbefehl and Mass Executions of Soviet
Russian Prisoners of War". Anatomy of the SS State. Walter and Company: New York. pp.
505–536

On the matter of Western journalism:

- Recruit and motivate a small group of insiders in proportion to population.

- Make a big documentary out of small group of people and portray it as interest of whole
country.
- Make a "leak" of anti-regime material inside Russia and introduce new pseudo-superior
(just because there are no such thing) values and make an uprising seem like a current mass
event.
- Make an "honest and selfless" global statement on support of democracy upon collapse of
regime, be welcomed in the warm hands of democracy. In all fairness, Russia has issues with
corruption, no one can deny that, but if you believe that protests paid by foreign and foreign-
backed non-Government organizations that aim to destabilize the only obstacle to a world-
wide hegemony of the United States of America are genuine and interested in improving the
livelihood of the average Russian and exterminating corruption in Russia, then you're sorely
misled and profoundly naive. Besides, we've all seen before what a Western-approved Russia
looked like.

On the matter of differentiation between Stalin and Hitler:

“While Stalin was dealing with consequences of a civil war, had to re-establish a crumbled
economy, industrialize an underdeveloped agrarian country like Russia was when he came to
power, all Hitler wanted was to expand, exterminate ethnicities that were detrimental to
Germany’ rise, and increase the living space for Germans.”

Further on matter of the Lend-lease:

“Even then, Lend-Lease equipment wouldn't reach the USSR in mass quantities until late '43
at the earliest due to closed naval shipping through Japanese and German patrolled
waterways along with Arkhangelsk freezing over during the winter months. Though it indeed
influenced the recovery rate for the Soviets”.

On the matter of conditions of low-wage workers in Eastern Europe:

“Manufacturers are able to take advantage of an obscure European loophole known as the
outward processing trade (OPT) scheme. Under the rules, companies cut parts for the shoes in
one country before exporting them to a low-wage economy where they are assembled and
sewn. They are then imported back to the original country, duty free. The finished shoes can
then be labelled as being made in the original country. The report, compiled by researchers
from several European rights groups, is based on interviews with 179 workers in 12 factories.
It condemns OPT as “a dead-end scheme for workers, national economies and businesses”
and describes it as “an economic and social road to ruin”. Researchers found that the factories
produced shoes for brands including Zara, Lowa, Deichmann, Ara, Geox, Bata and Leder &
Schuh AG and subsidiaries of CCC Shoes & Bags in Poland and Rieker and Gabor in
Slovakia. Bata did not address the allegations directly but welcomed the report, which it said
had provided “interesting insights in the generally under-reported working conditions in
eastern Europe”. The company said it expected its suppliers to comply with local laws. The
report looked at production in six low-wage European countries: Albania, Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Macedonia, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. One in three of the Albanian
workers questioned were paid less than the legal minimum wage of £121 a month, even with
overtime and bonuses. The report indicated that women were generally worse off. Albanian
workers reported having to work on up to 60 pairs of shoes a day.”
On the matter of phenotype of the Early Slavs:

I. Byzantine sources:
1. Procopius of Caesarea (6th century): "(...) Valerian chose one of the Sklaveni who are men
of mighty stature. (...)"
"(...) Nay further, they do not differ at all from one another in appearance. For they are all
exceptionally tall and stalwart men, while their bodies and hair are neither very fair or very
blonde, nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type, but they are slightly ruddy in
color. (...)"
2. Theophilact Simokatta (describing events from year 595): "(...) The Emperor was with
great curiosity listening to stories about this tribe, he has welcomed these newcomers from
the land of barbarians, and after being amazed by their height and mighty stature, he sent
these men to Heraclea. (...)"
3. Theophanes the Confessor (describing the same event from year 595): "(...) The Emperor
was admiring their beauty and their stalwart stature. (...)"
4. Pseudo-Maurice (Strategikon) - late 6th century / early 7th century: "(...) Tribes of
Sclaveni and Antes (...) are very resistant to hardships, they easily endure both heat and cold,
rain and lack of garment. (...)"
II. Muslim and Sephardi Jewish sources:
6. Al-Baladuri (late 7th century): "(...) Slavs are a tribe of ruddy complexion and fair hair.
(...)"
7. Ibn Qutajba (describing events from years 691 - 694): "(...) If only Prince wanted, outside
of his doors would be black Sudanians or ruddy Slav(...)"

8. Al-Ahtal (late 7th century): "(...) Birds of the desert saw in those people a crowd of fair-
haired Slavs. (...)"
10. Jaqut (13th century, but using much older primary sources): "(...) Slavs are a tribe of
ruddy complexion and fair hair. (...)"
11. Ibn Al-Kalbi (late 8th century / early 9th century): "(...) Slavs are a numerous nation, fair-
haired and of ruddy [pink] complexion. (...)"
12. Al-Gahiz (early 9th century): "(...) Among Slavs, abominable and ugly are their
smoothness of hair [as opposed to curly hair] and delicateness, as well as blond or ruddy
colour of their hair and beards, and also whiteness [bright blond colour] of their eyelashes
(...)"
13. Abraham ben Jacob (years 965 - 966): "(...) What is peculiar [when it comes to Slavs],
most of Bojema people [Bohemians / Czechs] are of swarthy complexion and dark hair, while
fair colours are rare among them [compared to frequencies among other West and East
Slavs]. (...)"
Abraham ben Jacob: "(...) Slavic people are often haunted by two diseases (...) these are two
types of rash: redness and abscess (...)"

On the matter of Russian economy, specifically its currency:

“Russian currency lost it's value against the USD due to falling commodities prices and
Russian banks getting sanctioned, plus Westerners pulling any speculation scheme to crash
the rouble as hard as possible.”

On the matter of the treaty that concluded the Polish-Soviet war:

“The treaty was very favourable for Poland. Poland simply did not want as much land as the
Bolsheviks were willing to give. Its fairy established right now, that Bolsheviks were fully
prepared to restore pre-1772 borders of Poland. Poland did not want so much land mostly due
to factional struggle in Poland. Pilsudski's socialists lost power to Dmowski's nationalists.
Socialists wanted as much land as possible, because they wanted to create client republics (or
autonomous provinces that would serve as buffer zone. Nationalists wanted compact Poland
with as little minorities as possible.”

On the matter of the reports of the Russian army:

“Its futile and immature to speak of numerical superiority. Numerical superiority isn't as easy
to achieve as people think, you still have to mobilize, clothe, feed, and manoeuver your
forces. Just having numerical superiority means nothing, you have many examples of vast
armies beaten by smaller armies. Real-time warfare doesn't work like it does in video games.
Nor does cold mean anything, Russians are cold too. Cold and snow is something to be
expected, so is mud, and those affected Russians as much as they affected anyone else. The
fact Russians often managed to exploit their manpower potential and environment is a good
thing, since it allowed them to prevail. What's the problem here? It's not heroic? Well, real
life doesn't care about heroism. Besides, if you read historical accounts many speak of how
Russians are excellent soldiers, but were often badly led. When they had good leadership
difference could be extreme (see their WW1 defeats and compare them with Brusilov
offensive in the same war). In any case, in World War 2, most ignore that Nazi Germany and
her allies had bigger manpower and industrial potential, and practically had a single front to
care about. Soviets lost vast tracts of land and much of manpower with it. They still
prevailed, because they used what they had better. They didn't win thanks to ''hordes'' as
idiots here think. Matter of fact, the German soldiers rated their Soviet counterparts far better
than they rated Americans and British, what do you think about that?”

On the matter of importance of owning your nation’s Central Bank:

“Centralna Banka bez potpune monetarne suverenosti nije Centralna Banka, mada se tako
moze zvati. Necete moci rijesiti veliku nezaposlenost sve dok ne budete bili u situaciji da
preko Centralne Banke sami krojite svoju monetarnu suverenost. Morate biti u mogucnosti
sami stampati svoju valutu i taj novac investirati u projekte i proizvodnju i u razvoj
infrastrukture umjesto da cekate kada ce strani investitor tamo doci.”
On the matter of the origins of the “Russian winter” syndrome:

“The Combat Studies Institute in the United States of America came to the conclusion that
the “Russian Winter” is more of an excuse by western armies to explain their defeat to
"inferior Russians", especially since their plans were already falling apart before the onset of
winter. ”

On the matter of genetic heritage:

“The human brain responds more strongly to racial ingroup than outgroup individuals' pain.
This racial ingroup bias varies across individuals and has been attributed to social
experiences. What remains unknown is whether the racial ingroup bias in brain activity is
associated with a genetic polymorphism. We investigated genetic associations of racial
ingroup bias in the brain activity to racial ingroup and outgroup faces that received painful or
non-painful stimulations by scanning A/A and G/G homozygous of the oxytocin receptor
gene polymorphism (OXTR rs53576) using functional MRI. We found that G/G compared to
A/A individuals showed stronger activity in the anterior cingulate and supplementary motor
area (ACC/SMA) in response to racial ingroup members' pain, whereas A/A relative to G/G
individuals exhibited greater activity in the nucleus accumbens (NAcc) in response to racial
outgroup members' pain. Moreover, the racial ingroup bias in ACC/SMA activity positively
predicted participants' racial ingroup bias in implicit attitudes and NAcc activity to racial
outgroup individuals' pain negatively predicted participants' motivations to reduce racial
outgroup members' pain. Our results suggest that the two variants of OXTR rs53576 are
associated with racial ingroup bias in brain activities that are linked to implicit attitude and
altruistic motivation, respectively.”

On the matter of who won the “space race”:

“In the meantime the Russians won the autonomous drone marathon, by sending the first
fully automated drones to land on moon, gathered 10 times the amount of rocks America ever
got, and taken off back to Earth. Something that took thousands of Americans and tens of
millions of dollars to achieve on Mars 40 years later. And then they’ve also built the first
space station.”

On the matter of Hungarian survival within the Hapsburg Monarchy:

“It was the actions of the the Habsburg loyalists, the "Lobonz", like János Pálffy, who had a
role in persuading the Germans that Hungarians can still be useful to them. Without this,
Hungary would have been abolished as a separate entity and completely Germanized.”

On the matter of the arrival of Poles during the second siege of Vienna:

"At the high noon as the battle was raging on, the first banners arrived on the hill, a sunbeam
through the clouds announced their arrival. Everybody stopped and gazed upon them, "The
Polish have arrived!" everybody whispered, "Defenders of Europe are here", "Our salvation
is here! All hail the polish king!" everybody whispered both terrified and full of joy. There
they stood, the famous Polish winged hussars, elite, like the messengers and fist of God they
were. Their banners proudly dancing in the wind. Their armour shines in the sun, all wearing
skins of leopards, tigers and wolves. And at this never-ending moment of silence, the Polish
king himself gave a sign, and lead the charge all by himself to our salvation. Everybody stood
still, both foe and ally from "lieutenant" to soldier, all were mesmerized and paralyzed by this
sight, this immense charge like never before. "Germans" stopped their horses and beheld in
awe as the Polish forces were drawing closer and slowly gaining momentum. The pounding
of their hooves made the ground shake, their metal winds sounded like rolling thunder. Side
by side they rode. Just like God whispered one word: “death”, and thy word became flesh.
When they clashed with the pagans, their work was swift and merciless, they didn't stop or
even slow down until they reached pagans (Ottomans) camp. Deus vicit, eternal glory to the
Polish king, saviour of Christianity, saviour of Vienna, saviour of Europe!"”

On the differentiation between Russia and the West:

“Russia is not socially collapsing like West. That's a huge difference. The fact you people are
literally wired to observe everything through short-term general economic benefit or loss is a
further proof that your society is going down. Russians don't think like that in general. And
they are correct. Whatever you may think about their methods, people who rule Russia are far
more competent at ruling a collective and strengthening it. But don't believe me, you'll be
alive to see it with your own eyes.”

On Tito’s foresight:

“He correctly foresaw the clash of civilizations between East and West and due to the
optimum location of his new country he managed to fit neatly right in between. It meant he
could open his country up to trade and exchange with the prosperous west while providing
much of the social goodies and benefits of socialism. He was no saint but compared to his
contemporaries was incorruptible and was not prone to killing people with slightly differing
opinions. Any man who can hold the Balkans together is charismatic and competent.”

On the matter of the Old Turkic nobility in the Ottoman Empire:

“Elites don't have many differences, neither do the common people. The Actual fault line
between the old Turkic elite and the new Persianized one is Mehmed II the Conqueror's
reign. Starting in his reign Turkic elite had been largely disempowered to simple civil
servantship. This was done to probably stop another house from seizing the Ottoman throne
or to revolt against them. The Turkic elite was replaced by Devşirmes and loyal Ottoman
civil servants.”

On the matter of Slovenia’s economy in Yugoslavia:

“What about the labor force and a sizable market Slovenia had access to because of
Yugoslavia? Not to mention, even after the dissolution. Per capita, it was actually Serbia that
got the largest share of the federal budget, but Slovenia had a great advantage in terms of
investment in industry because during the late 40’s and 1950’s the development of its
industry and infrastructure was privileged in the five-year plans, because it was financially
more viable to invest in existing proto-industry than to start out of nothing (as it was in
poorer republics, which did not have the infrastructure needed).”

On the matters of Turkish perception of Ottoman rule over the Balkans, and its historical
ramifications:

“The majority of Turks believe that the Ottoman subjugation of the Balkans was an easy
process (Montenegro remained free and independent, and they even had to recognize it), even
though it was an arduous process which lasted nearly 220 years (more than half of which was
spent on conquering Serb states), and we're talking of nigh-continuous military forays and
campaigns of conquest that were only interrupted a few times in recorded history (invasion of
the Timurids, for example). After solidifying their claim over the Balkans, they've conducted
campaigns of disarmament of the newly subjugated Christian peoples and land, and in order
to make that work, they've also facilitated a compulsory conscription of the healthiest and
oldest male progeny of the aforementioned peoples (Devsirme, also known as the "blood
tax"), a method of population control. What Muslim historians rarely mention is the fact that
the Devsirme was, till the mid-17th century, compulsory, and fatal for most boys, for they
had to walk on foot all the way to the capital, most often barefooted, while those who'd
survive the perils of the road would be subjected to the Janissary training. To make matters
worse, Turks use this period of disarmament as "proof" of the Ottoman Empire' "enlightened"
rule over the Balkans, since its Christian inhabitants were initially disarmed for more than a
century, there were no rebellions to be launched against the Ottoman Empire, and since there
were no rebellions, that means that the aforementioned peoples were content and happy with
the way the Ottomans have ruled, its circular reasoning, a major element in Turkish, and
Islamic historiography in general. Further on, The Turkish occupation of the Balkans dragged
the Balkans down. All of them had zero industry when the Ottomans left, and barely any
guilds. Most of the economy was in agriculture, with a few merchants or craftsman in bigger
towns (the Serbian economy ran almost solely on pigs and pork). Poor infrastructure in all
senses of the word. Dirt roads, no hospitals, no schools, feudal living conditions and high
taxes. When you look at literacy map of interwar Yugoslavia, you see clearly the reduction of
the Ottoman Empire's borders over time, illiteracy strongly correlates with the length of
Ottoman rule, a the few highly educated people from the countries that were under Ottoman
rule were all educated in either Austria or France. The further you go from Istanbul the more
anarchy there was. Local officials (generally local converts) taxing as they wish, bandits
operating on a large scale, and little to no protection for the subjugated Christian populations
of the Balkan peninsula.”

On the matter of diminishing influence of Slavic language in Germanic languages:

“Despite a comparable extent of historical proximity, the Germanic languages show fewer
significant Slavic influence partly because Slavic migrations were mostly headed south rather
than west. Due to political reasons, there is a tendency to diminish Slavic contributions to
Germanic languages. For instance, Max Vasmer has claimed that there are no Slavic loans
into Common Germanic. However, there are isolated Slavic loans into other Germanic
languages. For example, the word for "border", in modern German Grenze, Dutch “grens”
was loaned from the Common Slavic “granica”. English derives quark (a kind of cheese, not
the subatomic particle) from the German Quark, which in turn is derived from the Slavic
tvarog, which means "curd". Many German surnames, particularly in Eastern Germany and
Austria, exhibit Slavic origins.”

On the matter of the assessment of Yugoslavia’s ability to partake in global politics during its
dissolution:

“The thing we know is that objectively, the arms embargo hurt the Serbs the least, and the
Bosniaks the most, since the Serbs undoubtedly enjoyed JNA (Yugoslav peoples army the
former Yugoslavian armed forces) support. The VRS (Army of the Republic Srpska) enjoyed
great material support, their major problem throughout the war was manpower, not weapons
or equipment. The Bosnians had the opposite situation, abundant manpower but not enough
weapons. There are rumours that the Americans have allowed a"third nation" to arm the
Bosniaks, because then, they wouldn't be breaking the embargo. It seems that nation was
primarily Iran. That’s interesting, since the Muslims in Iran are mostly Shiite, while the
Bosnian Muslims are Sunni. Since in realpolitik no one does anything out of sentimentality,
my bet would have been that the Iranians hoped to extend their influence and somehow
expand their Shiite influence among the Bosnian Muslims, who are, lets be honest, pretty
shaky in their faith one way or the other. Such projects are alive today, and Iran is pretty
active with spreading their Shiite literature nowadays. My guess is that Turkey, a NATO
member and one heavily influenced by the Americans couldn't really do anything without
American consent. And a NATO member that is not respecting and international arms
embargo would look bad. The Saudis on the other hand supported the Bosniak army with a
substantial amount of money, although I know very little about this complex topic since it is
still very hard to find any objective information about it. Bosniak identity is so intertwined
with religion that it is hard for people who identify themselves like that to ever see that
clearly. The resentment is still very strong. The problem is that the mythological view of
history is still dominant among all of the masses. The Serb extremists dream of their lost
medieval glory and a Christian re-conquest, the Bosniaks have pseudo-historical views about
their past, about some kind of authentic Bosnian experience which is not supported by any
facts, turning their medieval history into a struggle against an “oppressor” and that they were
somehow a particular type of Christian “heretic” who just wanted to be left alone. The Croats
see themselves as the Antemurale Christianitatis against the “eastern hordes”. Although since
they are in the NATO pact and the EU, they have the best chance to escape the ever-returning
Balkan love triangle. No one is right here, and everyone has some points. Bosniaks don't
understand that as the weakest part of this constellation, and as adherents of a foreign religion
in a Christian sphere, they are destined to always pay the greatest price. They forget that they
should forge better relations with their neighbours with extreme dedication, and not go over
Serb/Croat heads and flirt with the Turks who will not care if anything happens to them. Most
extremists here have a “big brother complex”, while no one knows that politics since
Machiavelli have not changed a bit. It is a complex situation with little understanding. I only
see education as a real way out of this situation, but the general Americanized cult of anti-
intellectualism is rather prevalent in the Western Balkans.”
On the matter of the origins of the war in Syria:

“The true reason for the war in Syria is that Saudi Arabia would like to compete with Russia
for the European Natural Gas business. Russia doesn't like this idea as it not only costs them
customers and future income but it reduces their influence over Europe. In order for this
pipeline to get to Europe though it has to cross Syria. Syrian President Assad decided it
wasn't in the best interests of Syria to agree to the Saudi pipeline but instead agreed to the
Iranian pipeline. Saudi, the European Union, Israel and the United States then started a
rebellion against the Syrian Government in the same manner they've done in Libya. The end
goal is installation of a puppet government friendly to the desires of this alliance. The fact
that this initiative spawned ISIS and provided a huge source of funding for the former
enemies of the West to include Al-Qaeda doesn't seem to bother the Western leadership at all.
They’ve also sponsored the rebellion in Ukraine to depose the Russian friendly president
there, so their alliance would have control of the Russian pipelines going through Ukraine.
They didn't Expect Russia to fight back though and it resulted in an on-going colour war
there with massive casualties and Russia's seizing of Crimea. Every country supporting the
ouster of Assad has a direct interest in the Saudi pipeline deal or is a client state of one of the
powers that does.”

On the matter of the immediate reasons for the invasion of Poland:

“The immediate reason was that the German Reich was running out of hard currencies and
had serious problems with liquidity. Hitler needed either to drastically cut spending and
introduce austerity measures or find some territory to plunder and pay for his insane
economic policy. Obviously, he chose the latter, in large part because he was too scared to
admit that his policies were a failure. Gdansk was just a pretext and everyone knew that at the
time. This is also the reason why Poland refused to back down. In reality Poland offered
Gdansk to Germany already in 1920’s in exchange for the Germans fucking off forever.
Poland simply wanted to delay the handover until late 1940’s when the Polish seaport at
Gdynia was to be complete. Also, Gdansk had German military personnel in the city,
something that is permanently ignored for reasons unknown. The conflict is, so often made
out to be about Danzig itself, was actually caused because Hitler was autistic about
connecting it to the "mainland". Contrary to Nazi propaganda, Poland was actually giving out
three railroads to Germany for the use of extraterritorial (sealed) trains to pass to Danzig
without Polish interference.”

On the matte of the belief that Nazi Germany had favoured a “European” Europe :

“What Hitler and his party wanted was a subservient Europe with Germany as its leader,
hence the systematic destruction of Slavic property in Eastern, Central and South-eastern
Europe, the killing of 37-38 million Slavs and the rapes of an estimated 10 million women in
all the territories that've encompassed the Eastern Front.”
Sources:
1) Bielanski, David (2004). "Gender and the World Wars: An Integrated Epoch of Change"
2) R. Mühlhäuser, Eroberungen: sexuelle Gewalttaten und intime Beziehungen deutscher
Soldaten in der Sowjetunion 1941-1945
3) Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal (there is PDF
to download)
4) Askin, Kelly Dawn. "War crimes against women: prosecution in international war crimes
tribunals"
5) Jacobsen, Hans-Adolf (1968). "The Kommisssarbefehl and Mass Executions of Soviet
Russian Prisoners of War". Anatomy of the SS State. Walter and Company: New York. pp.
505–536
6) Overy, Richard, Russia's War: A History of the Soviet Effort: 1941–1945,
7) Glantz, David, The Soviet‐German War 1941–45
8) Erickson, John. The Road to Stalingrad. Stalin's War against Germany
9) Müller, Rolf-Dieter and Gerd R. Ueberschär. Hitler's War in the East, 1941–1945: A
Critical Assessment
10) Stephan Lehnstaedt, Jochen Böhler: Die Berichte der Einsatzgruppen aus Polen 1939
11) Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2014). The German Occupation of Poland
12) David, Stahel Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East
13) Shelley Baranowski, Nazi Empire: German Colonialism and Imperialism from Bismarck
to Hitler
14) Holger H. Herwig, "Geopolitik: Haushofer, Hitler and Lebensraum," Geopolitics,
Geography and Strategy
15) Tomasz Szarota. Polen unter deutscher Besatzung, 1939–1941 - Vergleichende
Betrachtung
16) Thomas, N., K. Mikulan, and C. Pavelic. Axis Forces in Yugoslavia 1941–45.
17) Bartov, Omer. Hitler’s Army: Soldiers, Nazis, and War in the Third Reich
18) Beck, Birgit. "Vergewaltigungen. Sexualdelikte von Soldaten vor Militärgerichten der
deutschen Wehrmacht, 1939–1944
19) Mamula, Branko (1985). "The National Liberation War in Yugoslavia, 1941–1945
20) Overmans, Rüdiger (2000). Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg
21) Colić, Mladenko (1977). Kolaboracionističke oružane formacije u Jugoslaviji 1941–1945.
godine: Oslobodilačka borba naroda Jugoslavije kao opštenarodni rat i socijalistička
revolucija
On the matter of German predatory Media laws:

“Germany, which has a law strictly limiting foreign media in Germany owns at least 80 % of
all media in Poland and only a little bit lesser percentage of Polish banks, supermarkets,
industry etc. and is in no hurry to let go of its economic domination over all Europeans
whatever it takes.”

On the matter of how Yugoslavia maintained its market:

“Prvo, ljudi su išli u Trst u šoping jer je Jugoslavija štitila svoju privredu sa visokim
carinama. Ne možeš da podigneš svoju industriju na noge ako otvoriš tržište. Drugo,
Energoprojekt, Komgrap i slične firme su imale ugovore vrijedne milijarde dolara i naši su se
obogatili poslovima po Kuvajtu, Iraku, Libiji i Bliskom Istoku I u nekim afričkim državama
koje su sve bile članice Nesvrstanih.”

On Tito’s origin:

“In the years after Tito's death up to nowadays, some people have disputed his identity. Tito's
personal doctor, Aleksandar Matunović, wrote a book about Tito in which he questioned his
true origin, noting that Tito's habits and lifestyle could only mean that he was from an
aristocratic family. Serbian journalist Vladan Dinić (born 1949), in Tito is not Tito, includes
several possible alternate identities of Tito, noting that there were 3 person who had
identified as Tito. In 2013 a lot of media coverage was given to then unclassified NSA's study
in Cryptologic Spectrum that concluded Tito had not spoken the Serbo-Croatian language as
a native. The report noted that his speech had features of other Slavic languages (Russian and
Polish). The hypothesis that "a non-Yugoslav, perhaps a Russian or a Pole" assumed Tito's
identity was included with a note that this had happened during or before the Second World
War. The report notes Draža Mihailović's impressions of Tito's Russian origins after he had
personally spoken with Tito. However, the NSA's report was completely invalidated by
Croatian experts. The report failed to recognize that Tito was a native speaker of the very
distinctive local Kajkavian dialect of Zagorje. His acute accent, present only in Croatian
dialects, and which Tito was able to pronounce perfectly, is the strongest evidence for his
Zagorje origins”.

A summary of the events that led to the founding of the Kindom of Yugoslavia:

“Serbia could have either gone with the territories promised to it in the London agreement in
1915. All of Bosnia, parts of Croatia that were ethnically Serbian, parts of Vojvodina. Or it
could have embraced the South Slav project. To be the unifying force of all 3 south Slavs (bar
Bulgaria), Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. To be the "Piedmont of the Yugoslavs". This is what
historically became the ambition of the regent and heir apparent of Serbia, which in the end
cost him his life and lead to the genocide of Serbs by the Croats during WW2. As Austria
was falling apart the South Slavic representatives formed a political coalition to push for a tri-
part monarchy, but as the possibility of A-H capitulation was becoming clearer they met up
with the Serbian government to discuss unification. They signed an agreement that the
Kingdom of Serbia and State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs would join together on equal
terms. And the other details would be discussed at a national assembly. The Austria-
Hungarian empire loses control. The State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs declares itself and
claims all the South Slav lands. However, they’re a completely unrecognized state and have
no outside support. But soon it became apparent that parts of its territory were still controlled
by Austria and by Hungary. Italy was going in to get the land it was promised in 1915. The
Kingdom of Serbia ignored the prior agreement, because it was legally null and void because
the State of SCS was not recognized, and therefor not a subject in international law. The
assembly of Srem that was supposedly under the control of the State SCS voted to join
Serbia. A day later, the rest of Vojvodina voted to join Serbia as well. And then, a day later,
Montenegro voted to join Serbia and even fought a civil war because some people wanted the
king of Montenegro to lead the new country.”

On Tito’s untarnished reputation:

“Antifašisti u priopćenju upozoravaju da Tita nitko od relevantnih sudova nije osudio, osim
Jugoslavenskog kraljevskog suda u tzv. bombaškom procesu 1928. godine, a budući da je
Tito Hrvatsku s NOB-om uveo među zemlje pobjednice Drugog svjetskog rata, HDZ tim
prijedlozima nastoji Hrvatsku svrstati među gubitnike, uz bok njemačkih nacista i talijanskih
fašista.”

On the matter on the Hussite contributions to science and military doctrine:

“They have invented modern military manuals (later adopted by Germans), whole new
fighting systems and also filled Howitzers (Houfnice cannons, Hussite invention). We were
first ones to use fire arms on massive, organized scale in Europe. They’ve also added citizens
and the middle class in to the dealings of Zemský sněm (medieval parliament) in the year of
1420! They’ve also started Christian reforms a hundred years prior to Luther. Furthermore,
Hussite era has contributed the most to the spread of notion and knowledge of reading and
writing among the middle classes.”

Further on the futility of the claim that Stalin planned to invade Europe before Hitler
intercepted him:

“There's no indication whatsoever that Stalin planned major expansions outside possibly the
historical sphere of influence of the old Russian Empire. He was paranoid, risk-averse and
very much committed to his "communism in one country" principle. Why would Stalin order
mobile tanks? Perhaps because the entire doctrine of the Red Army at the time was one of
mobile warfare? Did that possibility ever enter your mind? The pre-war Red Army’s doctrine
was built on aggression and mobile warfare – within the confines of the belief that
(counter)offense is the best defense? That, however, is a purely military thing and doesn't
actually mean anything in regards to political intentions. And the minefields at the border
were "cleared" because they weren't laid out in peacetime to begin with - mines have a
limited lifetime out in the field and Barbarossa caught the Soviets in complete peacetime
stance.”

On the origin of the phenomenon of the “Kievan Rus’:

“First, in ancient times, the concept of "Kievan Rus" has never been used. The name of the
country and the people were simply the word "Rus". As an ethnic self-designation, it was
used already in the treaties of Oleg and Igor with the Greeks 912 and 945. the Byzantines
called Rus "Russia" "Russian language" "Russian people" and "the Russian land (Russka
Zemlya).” The concept of "Kievan Rus" emerged in the historical science of the middle of
XIX century in the narrow geographical sense: to denote a small podneprovye region – Kiev
region. It was first used by the historian S. M. Soloviev (1820-1879), the author of the
famous book "history of Russia from ancient times", which was translated to 29 languages
(ed. since 1851). He, in particular, tried to distinguish between "Kiev Rus", "Rus Chernihiv"
and "Russia Rostov or Suzdal". This same understanding is found in N. And. Kostomarov
("Russian history in biographies of its main figures", 1872), V. O. Klyuchevsky ("Full course
of Russian history", ed. from 1904) and other historians of the second half of XIX – early XX
centuries.”
More particular information on the Rus’:

“Prior to the Mongol invasions, Rus was composed of East Lithuania, Belarus, Northwest
Russia, and East Ukraine if we want to use a modern frame of reference. This was not a
single nation, more like a very loose group of people united by a common language and
culture. While it gets called the Kievan Rus, Kiev wasn't really a capital, it was just the best
known and most established of the city-states in Rus and throughout many periods of the
Rus's history was the dominant city-state, which allowed it to control nearby city-states to a
degree. Kievan Rus’ is more of a term for determining a time-frame than a nation. During the
Mongol invasions, the population of Southern Rus generally shifted to the safer North, to
other major cultural centers of Rus such as Novgorod and eventually to Moscow. Kiev was
burned to the ground by the Mongols more than once while things in Novgorod remained
rather stable. Novgorod and Moscow (and Kiev) all were forced to pay tribute to the Mongols
until Moscow rebelled and much later defeated the Golden Horde, becoming an independent
state. Meanwhile, Kiev was a part of Poland-Lithuania. Then after a series of wars Muscovy
conquered and thus reunited the lands that had once been part of Rus, thereby becoming
Russia. Since the culture in this area was the same, the lands that Moscovy annexed (such as
Kiev) became simply parts of Russia. There was no cultural boundary and there was
definitely no such thing as Ukraine at the time. Kiev was a Russian city, and people living
there in 1700 would have called themselves Russians.”

Further on the contributions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth:

“Poland is far less known and understood than Tibet, there are plenty of Tibetan studies to be
found at major Western universities, which obviously cannot be said about Polish studies.
Not even professors of history are aware that Renaissance, Enlightenment and Romanticism
cannot possibly be understood in Europe without including the major works from those
époques in Polish.”

On Russian motives:

“Russia's real motives are complex (insofar as it even has motives, since like all countries it
and its government are abstract entities composed of many people). Given that, Russia's not a
villain. It doesn't want to "bring the west to its knees." Its main desire is for its own security.
Russia's been invaded more times than you can count, a number of those invasions have been
absolutely devastating to the country, and it's used to being surrounded by enemies. That's
left an imprint on the country's character. That's why it's so paranoid about NATO expansion
into its backyard - hell, that's why it was so keen to set up satellite states in Central Europe
during the Cold War, as a buffer against possible future attack. It appears to be villainous
(and hell, it is villainous) because the desire for security can often lead to expansionist,
imperialistic foreign policy - but it's the same motive that's led the US to prop up American-
friendly dictatorships in Latin America and the Middle East.
Beyond that, the motives of the people in charge of Russia tend to be:
1. Maintain their own power; most of the wealthiest, highest-placed people in Russia today
were well-connected but neither terribly rich nor powerful when the USSR fell. They spent
years turning those connections into actual money and power and they don't intend to give
them up now that they've got them. It's also possible that, given their ties to organized crime,
some might actually fear for their safety if they lost their positions.
2. Improve Russia, the economy, its infrastructure, the military, forge trade relations, fix the
demographic crisis, do all the sensible things you need to do to run a country. Much of
Russia's leadership is self-interested but they still don't want their country to turn into an
Africa-tier hellhole.
3. Maintain a distinct Russian national character and don’t become a Western Liberal
Democracy 2.0. Putin's openly stated as much.

On the matter of the the Jagiellon dynasty:

“It's a Polish dynasty, given that it had it started as a separate dynasty from the Gediminids
after Jogaila became King of Poland.”

On Hitler’s admission of defeat:

“Die Slawen haben uns besiegt. Sie haben unser Land, unsere Nation, unsere Ideologie
zerschlagen. Das bedeutet sie sind eine arische Rasse und sie werden diese Welt in die Knie
zwingen: The Slavs have defeated us. They have smashed our land, our nation, our ideology.
This signifies them are an Aryan race and they will force this world in the knees”

On the matter of the Russian assimilation of Finno-Ugric tribes:

“The majority of Russians are of the R1a variety. Only the Northern Russians (Pomors) are
Finno-Baltic. While it’s true that many Finno-Baltic tribes have lived in the territory of what
is today's Russia, most of them were absorbed by the Slavs (Merya, Muroma, Meshera) and
some have survived to this day by maintaining their own language, culture and in some cases,
even religion (Mari, Komi, Mordva, Karelian).”

On German cognitive dissonance regarding the most recent refugee migration:

“If Angela Merkel didn't openly invite them to Europe there wouldn't be so many of them in
Germany. Face it. Europe is flooded with migrants, not only refugees. And trust me, they do
not want to stay in Poland, Hungary or Czech Republic. Social benefits are not attractive to
them. We had several refugees brought to Poland by private organisations that wanted to help
them. And most of them left to Germany. How are you going to solve that? Force them to
stay in selected countries? How? Will you place armed guards or collars with GPS tracking
around their necks? Or will you force for example Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary to
give them the same amount of money they would get in Germany? This way you will create
riots across whole eastern part of EU because people who live here, pay taxes and contribute
to their countries, would receive few times less social help from country than
refugees/migrants. But otherwise, they will just leave eastern Europe and attempt to move to
Germany. At Initial phases this whole crisis was handled poorly and it is not surprising that
now it looks like Germany is trying to push their mess on others by playing the blame game.
"These nationalistic eastern Europeans are bad. They do not want refugees that we invited to
Europe. How dare they defend their cultural integrity!” Another thing is for example in
Poland there are not many minorities due to redrawing its borders after WWII and later cold-
war isolation which leaves country with around 96% of its population that declares being
Polish. Also, not surprising that such society will not be willing to change that state,
especially by being forced to do so”.

Further on the Eastern Front:

“It's the German census which says that only 25 000 people died in the bombing of Dresden.
Only Goebbels tried to exaggerate the number of casualties in order to discredit the Allies.
And before you start, if you truly think that human waves were the only tactic of the Red
Army, you're surely illiterate. Many civilians were simply trapped in the cities because the
initial invasion shook the Soviets to the core. It was completely unexpected (as in Stalin
didn't mobilize, he did get many warnings) and the army couldn't muster a full defence until
the Wehrmacht came close to Moscow. It's nice and dandy to blame the Soviets themselves
for the deaths of the civilians, but it isn't true. The Germans executed and starved million as
they advanced farther and farther in the Soviet territory. You also forget to mention that most
of our sources regarding the Eastern Front come from the Germans themselves. They were
the losers of the war, yet they have written a big chunk of history regarding it. Nazi Germany
was still Germany. The NSDAP was elected by the Germans themselves to power. It's just
that they hijacked the government and transformed it into a dictatorship. Nazi Germany was
supported by the Germans until the tables turned against it. The German plans were not
executed because they lost the war. If Hitler had won, we could swear that the world we live
in would be very different. There would be no Slavs in Europe. The only community
remaining might be on the other side of the Urals. There would obviously be no Jews in
Europe or Africa (the only remaining ones would be in the US). I'm not going to admit that
the Allies were "just as bad" as Germany because it's not true. They were morally different;
no Allied country started an industrialized program which's only aim was to completely
exterminate half of Europe’ population.”

On the bombings of Dresden:

“Large variations in the claimed death toll have fueled the controversy. In March 1945, the
German government ordered its press to publish a falsified casualty figure of 200,000 for the
Dresden raids, and death toll estimates as high as 500,000 have been given. The city
authorities at the time estimated no more than 25,000 victims, a figure that subsequent
investigations supported, including a 2010 study commissioned by the city council."

Further on the matter of German cognitive dissonance:

“Had the Germans won the war, they would not have given back any of the lands that they
took over. If you start a war, and lose it then you can't complain too much about the end
result. Not only that, but borders are artificial things. They have changed many times during
history, what makes Germany any more special? Lands which Prussia claimed as theirs, were
given to Crusaders by the Polish prince Mazowiecki when the crusaders retreated from
Palestine. Even if we ignore that, it's part of Poland now. Infrastructure, economy,
government, money, etc. are now for better or worse, based on the Polish model and Polish
traditions. Besides, after the ruination of World War II, Poland took it upon itself to rebuild
everything and make it look like the original. Why would Germany deserve those lands when
they no longer want to be part of it? Why would Germany deserve those lands when they
formally accepted the Polish borders and renounced all of their claims on Prussia?”

On the origins and purpose of the magazine “Der Spiegel”:

"Der Spiegel" is one of Europe's most influential magazines, and the most influential
magazine in Germany. It represents the mainstream view and the consensus of modern-day
Germans. Therefore, when it portrays Hungarians and Poles and other people as Nazis, you
can bet that that's how most Germans see them these days. Now, I'm not even going into the
how retarded people are for comparing everyone they don't like to Nazis. But what I will go
into is how Germans, who were the actual Nazis, dare to call anyone let alone Polish people,
Nazis. Jaroslaw Kaczyński parents actually fought against the Nazis for the entire war and in
the Warsaw uprising, in fact almost anyone in Poland had a family member which fought
against or was was murdered by the real Nazis, the Germans. this is not just stupid and
ignorant of Der Spiegel to post a picture of Jaroslaw Kaczyński dressed up as a Nazi, it's
actually horrendous and they should be sued for slander and libel by the Polish government
and people. A little background about Der Spiegel. It was founded by Rudolf Augstein a
former Nazi soldier in 1947. Despite being considered a left-wing magazine, over the years it
had many top Nazis write articles for it. So, A newspaper that was founded by a nazi, and had
nazis work and write for it, after WW2, is now going around calling other people, people who
mostly object and criticize the EU, a German dominated European Union, nazis. This also
plays into a larger plan the German government has been implementing for years now, which
is mainly to whitewash Germans from being the sole people who were responsible for the
crimes of Nazism, and blame everyone in Europe for also taking part in the Nazi atrocities in
WW2. This is done through a massive propaganda effort which includes, newspaper articles,
German “academic” studies, popular books, TV shows and films, all paid by the German
government, and all consisted with the new German propaganda drive which aims to blame
other people and countries for being responsible for the Nazi crimes in Europe during WW2,
and of trying to spread the “guilt” for the holocaust and other crimes the Germans committed,
even unto the victims themselves, namely the Poles. This has been a great success, by the
way. Today it's considered not politically correct in western societies and academia to say
this simple historical truth, that the Nazis were the Germans, all thanks to Germany and its
massive state funded propaganda apparatus. Of course, no one in the media is outraged when
German magazines call people who were the victims of Nazism Nazis, because the corporate,
globalist, pro EU media themselves have been calling Poles, Hungarians, eurosceptics,
conservatives and whoever they don't like Fascists and Nazis for a long time now, and
continue to do so with impunity. It's time for people in Poland to wake up and realize just
how Germany, and most Germans hate them, and what horrendous lies and propaganda they
are willing to spread about them.”

On the arguments against the attempted rehabilitation of the German army:

“This "clean and abiding Wehrmacht" fallacy should be permanently terminated, most
historians tend to agree that its categorically false and that it started with West German
rearmament during the Cold War. Some Western officials and sadly, some of their historians
as well, tried to perpetuate this idea that the Wehrmacht was solely divorced from the Nazi
Party, in order to sure up support for the new German army, which might have included
former party members. Others who adhere to it are: 1) descendants of Wehrmacht soldiers
who feel they'll be shunned by society for having an ancestor who fought for Nazi Germany,
2) actual Nazis attempting to whitewash history, 3) self-styled "scholars" who think that
history written by the winning side in a war is inherently false, but neither is the losing side's
story, and therefore try to invent some academic middle-ground, and 4) modern Germans
who think that the world will scorn them for being German.“

On the origins of the “Polish cavalry charging at tanks” myth:

“If you want to wind up a Pole of a certain age, there is no more reliable means than quoting
the old myth about Polish lancers charging at German panzer divisions in the second world
war. The story feeds a stereotype about Polish men being hopelessly romantic, hopelessly
moustachioed idiots who would actually gallop their horses at big steel tanks. Even this
newspaper fell into the trap less than two years ago, when a columnist described the mythical
charge as "the most romantic and idiotic act of suicide of modern war". We had to append a
speedy correction admitting that we had "repeated a myth of the second world war, fostered
by Nazi propagandists". The most likely origin of the legend is a skirmish at the Pomeranian
village of Krojanty on the first day of the German invasion, 1 September 1939. Polish
lancers, whose units had still not been motorised, did indeed charge a Wehrmacht infantry
battalion but were forced to retreat under heavy machine gun fire. By the time German and
Italian war correspondents got there, some tanks had arrived and they joined the dots
themselves. The story was used first by the Nazi propaganda machine and then by its Soviet
counterpart, to portray Polish officers (who were killed by Stalin the next year) as absurdly
careless about the lives of their troops. What is most irritating to Poles about this particular
fable is that it trivialises the Polish contribution to the allied war effort, reducing it to a single
moment of whimsy. In fact, as the war historian and Times columnist Ben Macintyre recently
wrote: "The Polish contribution to allied victory in the Second World War was extraordinary,
perhaps even decisive, but for many years it was disgracefully played down, obscured by the
politics of the Cold War. Macintyre points out that one in 12 Battle of Britain pilots was a
Pole, and some 250,000 Polish troops served with British forces, while a huge, largely
forgotten role was also played by the Polish resistance. The Home Army, as it was called, is
thought to have been about 400,000-strong, and inflicted serious damage on German
occupying forces throughout the war. The French resistance only grew to that size after D-
Day, when the tide had already turned. But while the French were able to lead the liberation
parade into Paris, the Polish Home Army and its memory were crushed by the country's new
Soviet occupiers, with western acquiescence. The contributions of Polish soldiers and pilots
during the invasion of Poland have been cast aside in favour of the Blitzkrieg mythos. But the
truth of what happened in those first days of what became known as the Polish September
Campaign is much more complicated than that. And in the process of that truth fading away,
history has swallowed a nasty bit of Nazi propaganda. To begin with, the myth of the Polish
cavalry charge against tanks did actually involve an actual Polish cavalry charge. The reason
for this is quite simple: in 1939, mechanized warfare existed mostly in theory. Almost every
army in Europe, including Germany, still used mounted cavalry for scouting and as mobile
infantry. The purpose of these units wasn’t to engage tanks on horseback, but to quickly
move to areas where firepower was needed, dismount, and fight the enemy with towed anti-
tank guns and small arms. And while the Germans did have a number of tanks operating in
Poland, they had yet to perfect the all-powerful Blitzkrieg that’s come to dominate our
thinking about German victory. Tactical thinking of the time thought of tanks mostly as
infantry support, and that was the role the German army was using them in. Even when the
tank became the dominating mobile force on the battlefield, both the Axis and Allies made
extensive use of horses in a number of key roles. Germany had six horse-mounted divisions
in its active ranks as late as 1945, and would employ over two million horses in the course of
the war. And while the Poles never used horses against tanks, the mighty Soviet Army did.
The early days of the German invasion of the USSR saw incompetent and sycophantic
commanders throwing masses of horse-riding cavalry against German armour, with horrific
results for both man and beast. All of this is to reinforce the idea that the Poles weren’t
“backwards” for employing horse-mounted soldiers – they were perfectly in keeping with the
established military doctrine of 1939. Nor was the actual charge at Krojanty “the last cavalry
charge in history” as some have suggested. So, we ask ourselves, what did happen the day
“Polish cavalry charged German tanks?” Very little, as it turns out. It was a small skirmish in
a campaign that lasted over a month, one battle out of many that only became famous
because of the myth that rose up around it. It was in the immediate aftermath of the skirmish
at Krojanty that the myth of the “charge against tanks” was born. After the Lancers scattered,
the Germans retook the area in force, bringing tanks in as reinforcement. At that point,
several war correspondents, including Italian journalist Indro Montanelli and the future
author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William Shirer, were escorted onto the
battlefield. They were told that the corpses they saw were the result of an attack with horses
and lances against the tanks they saw, and breathlessly repeated the story in their papers,
playing up the bravery – and foolishness – of the Poles.

Shirer especially got caught up in the romantic notion of doomed horsemen charging tanks.
He wrote about the charge in his 1941 book Berlin Diary, and embellished it even more in
1959 in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Despite 20 years having passed, and no
evidence ever surfacing to confirm the story, Shirer imbued the incident with an almost
Homeric mythos. Equally guilty in propagating the “horses against tanks” nonsense was the
famed German panzer commander General Heinz Guderian, the myth was even later used by
the Soviet Union as an example of how Polish officers, who Stalin would order massacred in
1943, were backwards, untrustworthy, uncaring about the fate of their men and useless as
combatants. With respected figures like Shrier and Guderian pumping it up, the myth became
an accepted part of World War II lore, even as subsequent writers tore it down as an example
of Nazi propaganda. Even as recently as 2009, the British newspaper The Guardian ran an
editorial that referred to the bravery and stupidity of the non-existent incident, a mistake they
later printed a retraction to correct. Poland may have fallen to the German invasion, but her
troops exacted a heavy price. Nearly 45,000 Germans were killed or wounded. 300 aircraft
were destroyed, along with over 12,000 vehicles, including over 1,000 tanks and armoured
cars. And Polish soldiers, sailors and pilots would make great contributions to the war effort,
with as many as 1 in 12 of the British pilots who saved the United Kingdom in 1940 being an
exiled Pole. These sacrifices deserve far more attention than one debunked, racist and
incorrect bit of made-up history.

On the matter of opinions of E. Europeans on their lives in former Communist regimes:

“81% Serbians prefer life in Yugoslavia http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/for-simon-

poll-serbians-unsure-who-runs-their-country
63% Romanians prefer life under socialism
http://www.balkanalysis.com/romania/2011/12/27/in-romania-opinion-polls-show-nostalgia-
for-communism/
Hungary: 72% liked life better under socialism
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/hungary-better-off-under-communism/
East Germany: 57 percent defended the former GDR
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-
eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html
Slovakia, 2003 (Public Relation Institute, Bratislava): 66% said that they lived better under
Communism than they do now. Only 8% said they live better now than they did back then.”

Even more on the matter of the German mindset:

“ZDF didn't have enough investigate journalistic power for to establish the nationalities of the
rapists during the New Year attacks in Cologne for months, and yet, it took them minutes to
know the driver of the track was Polish. Naturally, he was not presented as the first victim of
the atrocious attack. Make no mistake- this is a public that has been presented lies
continuously about Poland since medieval ages. Their ignorance and hatred are so profoundly
embedded in their psyche that even if they genuinely believe they are having a 'nice attitude' -
it's only patronising insolence. You cannot have a 'nice' attitude without having proper history
at schools that would present Poland realistically (or at all) in the last thousand years till
today and without a long list of Polish classics translated into German, you simply can’t.
Simple as that. You can not.”

On Tito’s announcement of events that shall soon engulf the world:

“In his article “On certain current international issues”, written by the famous American
magazine Foreign Affairs, a former leader of Yugoslavia, Josip Broz Tito, presented the
manifest of foreign policy that will mark his reign over the next 20 years. Setting up of
military bases “I am not revealing any secret when I say that setting up of military bases in
Europe, the Middle East, and Asia represents a permanent threat to peace because it leads to a
legitimate distrust of the other side, in this case, Soviet leaders. Soviet leaders look at this,
rightly in my opinion, as the policy of boxing, the military threat and aggressive attempt of
isolation of the Soviet Union,” said Tito. If we compare this with the vision statements of the
Kremlin in the past few years, we will see that the key issue between Washington and
Moscow remained unchanged. In the meantime, other problems arose, such as the issue of the
US missile shield in Europe or South Korea, which further complicated the situation. The
existence of NATO, noted Tito, made sense when the Alliance was established – during the
reign of Stalin. As the factors responsible for the establishment of alliances disappeared, there
is absolutely no justification for its continued existence, and especially not for its expansion
and development. Due to Tito’s fundamental opposition to “block system” of foreign policy,
a similar attitude applies to the Warsaw Pact, even though its “initiator” was a necessity of
counterbalance to NATO. “I am confident that Warsaw Pact will disappear as soon as NATO
does,” wrote Tito.
On the matter of solutions for the future:
“Yugoslav leader proposed a collective security agreement, which would ensure peace and
stability on the basis of trust between nations and states, which would still allow efficient
solving of international problems. In order to succeed, it is necessary that the principle of
solving international problems is based on the coexistence of states, regardless of political
arrangements, or whether the government is under the communist or democratic-capitalist
regime. Interference in the internal affairs, which in today’s political arena is mostly coming
from Washington, is a major threat for Tito’s conception of international relations and “may
lead to a new catastrophe for all mankind”. Josip Broz developed a political vision of the
world that, except the socialist elements, overlaps with today’s efforts and beliefs in many
segments. Tito’s diplomatic maturity was far greater than many others who are represented
by a Cold War mindset. It took more than 30 years for the United States to change the
attitude towards Russia (as successors of the Soviet Union), but it was short-term as well.”

On the rising distrust among world leaders:

“In today’s world, there is a lot of mistrust between East and West, there is talk about another
Cold War, and there are also increasing estimates of the possible outcomes of the World War
III. In order to reduce the chances of a global conflict, today’s leaders lean towards political
unions, military alliances, intercontinental free trade agreements and similar legal and
administrative binding means, which are still based on block policies. The independence and
neutrality, which Tito noted as the key to peaceful coexistence, are threatened again by
blurring boundaries between nations and cultures and a new iron curtain between democratic
and liberal West and traditionalist Russia in the East. The dissatisfaction that arises from the
lack of independence is already manifested in the rise of nationalism and the so-called
“populism”, the racial tensions and growing distrust of people in their leaders. Judging by the
year of 2016, it is certain that this decade will bring even bigger political shocks and changes.
One may judge who was right – Tito or, more or less, everyone else.”

On the matter of the validity of Rummel’s estimations:

“In its entire 240 years of existence, the U.S. has only been at complete peace, meaning no
military operation or expedition of any kind, at least to the public's knowledge, for a total of
18 years. A good portion of your economy is solely reliant on the war industry and since
World War II, you've been directly responsible for the deaths of more than 20 million people
in 37 nations.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-
nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051
Considering how Capitalism is notably older than Communism, and was entirely spearheaded
by conquest and colonization, its death toll is substantially higher than that of Communism,
as it can be seen in the data in question:
75,000 Second Boer War, 100,000 Japanese Massacre of Singapore, 116,000 Burma-Siam
Railroad Construction, 200,000 Japanese Germ Warfare in China, 300,000 Rebelling Shia
Killed by Saddam, 300,000 US Bombing of Yugoslavia, 500,000 US Bombing Iraq Water
Supply ’91, 700,000 US Civil War, 1,000,000 Iraq-Iran War, 1,000,000 US sanctions on Iraq,
1,200,000 US Backed Suharto, 1,500,000 Irish Potato Famine, 5,964,000 Japanese
Democides, 7,000,000 Famine of 1932-33, 10,000,000 Bengal Famine of 1943, 30,000,000
Famine in British India, 5,000,000 US Intervention in the Congo, 1,000,000 Indonesian Anti-
Communist Purge, 1,000,000 Stateless (Anarcho-Capitalist) Somalia, 100,000 Industrial
Revolution USA, 3,000,000 US-Philippine War, 826,626 Palestinians Killed by Israel,
300,000 Guatemala, 300,000 Nanking Massacre, 400,000 Iraq (Gas sold to Saddam),
500,000 Iraq (Desert Storm), 650,000 Invasion of the Philippines, 1,066,000 Feudal Russia,
1,200,000 Invasion of Afghanistan, 1,300,000 Invasion of Iraq, 3,500,000 South African
Apartheid Regime Death Toll, 6,000,000 US intervention in Latin America and brutal US-
backed military dictatorships, 6,000,000 Japanese Imperialism, 10,000,000 Vietnam War,
including Cambodia and Laos, 10,000,000 Korean War, 20,000,000 British Occupation of
India, 12,000,000 Great Depression (America alone), 16,500,000 World War One,
60,000,000 World War Two, 95,000,000 Native American Genocide, 120,000,000 Capitalist
Policy in India 1947 – 1990, 80,000,000 African Slave Trade, 30,000 US Backed murder of
Tamils, 100,000 Spanish-American War, 400,000 Spanish Civil War, 15,000 Union Carbide
Bophal Disaster, 20,000 Massacre of the Paris Commune, 1,500,000 First Indochina 1946-
1954, 1,000,000 Colonization of the Belgian Congo, 80,000 French Madagascar, 1,000,000
Nigerian Civil War, 1,000,000 Rwandan Genocide, 100,000 US Made Famine in Bangladesh,
5,256,000 Children Died from Hunger ’09.
Rummel is known for inflating numbers for the sake of dramatic effect, and corroborate it
with evidence. In order to show you that Rummel’s figures are way off the wall, we will take
a closer look at the dictator whos death toll has the highest consensus – Hitler. While it is true
that there is some debate about whether the Holocaust occurred or how many people perished
under the Third Reich, the overall historical consensus is more stable than Stalin or Mao’s
death toll which changes every year as a new book is published or new archives are explored.
I think it’s safe to say that the Holocaust is the most studied genocide in the Western world.
How many people does Rummel estimate died under the Third Reich? According to him, 21
million. (To be more specific, Rummel says 20,946,000 during the span of 1933-1945). link:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.CHAP1.HTM .He even gave us give a break down
of who died where and because of what. Our main examples of his tendency to inflate
numbers will be the alleged death toll of Gypsies and Homosexuals.
a) Homosexuals
According to Rummel, 220,000 homosexuals were killed in the Holocaust. Can that truly be
correct? Well, neither the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM), nor the
Jewish Virtual Library, nor the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies cite a figure
EVEN CLOSE to Rummel’. The most liberal estimate is that 15,000 died in concentration
camps, but the historical consensus is 10,000. During the period Rummel describes, there
were an estimated 100,000 homosexuals living and arrested in Germany. Not all were tried,
but most of the 50,000 who were, were sent to normal prison which did not mean death. And
between 5,000 and 15,000 were sent to concentration camps. This means that assuming 100%
of the homosexuals in concentration camps died, at most it was 15,000. But that is even
questionable. According to the USHMM, “There are no known statistics for the number of
homosexuals who died in the camps”. That, however, is an understatement. The Nazis
actually had no plan to exterminate homosexuals, merely reeducate them for they viewed
homosexuality as something that is learned. In fact, the Jewish Virtual Library, citing
Germany’s top LGBT historian and professor of sociology Rüdiger Lautmann, says:"It does
not appear that the Nazis ever set it as their goal to completely eradicate all homosexuals.
Rather, it seems, the official policy was to either re-educate those homosexuals who were
“behaviorally” and only occasionally homosexual and to block those who were “incurable”
However, according to the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, “a figure of about
10,000 homosexuals is the one accepted by most scholars”.
This means that, assuming the mostl iberal body count, Rummel’s figures for homosexuals
are inflated by over 1,300%. (Not to mention that Rummel makes up the existence of over
100,000 homosexuals because the USHMM indicates there were roughly 100,000 whereas
Rummel says 220,000 died.)
b) Gypsies
Rummel says that 258,000 Gypsies died during the holocaust. On this point, Rummel is more
correct. While the numbers don’t add up, historians think that at least 200,000 died. But
examining the German decrees and number of deportations, we get a different story. In 1938,
Heinrich Himmler issued a decree to fight what he saw as the “gypsy plague” which directly
resulted in 2,000 gypsies being placed in concentration camps. Following that in 1939, the
Reich stepped up its efforts and 2,300 gypsies were deported to ghettos (not concentration
camps). In 1941, 5,000 gypsies were deported to ghettos. Then, in 1943, hell. Himmler issued
the “Auschwitz Order” and 23,000 gypsies were sent there. Assuming all 7,300 who lived in
ghettos survived, they were sent to Auschwitz. This means, assuming there were no deaths
along the way and a 100% fatality rate, according to the Danish Center for Holocaust and
Genocide Studies (and the numbers above), 32,300 died. Now I, unlike Rummel, want to be
honest and thus will also add this: the final sentence from the Danish Center, while providing
no statistics to back it up, says “However, historians now believe that at least 200,000 gypsies
fell victim to the Nazi persecution”. But given the lack of data on their part and their own
numbers, assuming a 100% death rate, adding up to only 32,300. Given that, Rummel’s
figures for Gypsies are inflated by over 600%.
One more thing, according to Rummel, 40 million people died in Soviet Gulags when “that is
twice the number of people that ever experienced the gulag and twenty times the number of
documented gulag deaths”. Let us take this into consideration, if Rummel has managed to
inflate the death tolls of groups where there is information is very much available by
hundreds of percents, how reliable do you think he is when it comes to information that is not
easily available, like Mao’s China, Socialist Yugoslavia or Stalin’s Russia? And even if the
figures are slightly higher than I found, they don’t make up for the huge percent inflation and
assumptions Rummel makes about the most studied genocide in history. In short, his
estimates are more than off, matter of fact, they're false.
Additional sources:1: http://www.chgs.umn.edu/educational/homosexuals.html
2: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005261
3: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/homo.html
4: http://www.holocaust-education.dk/holocaust/sigojnerne.asp
5:http://books.google.co.uk/books?
id=kewLQwngUSkC&q=passed+through&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=passed
%20through&f=false
6: http://archive.freecapitalists.org/forums/t/26853.aspx?PageIndex=1
For more information on Rummel, see: http://www.crappytown.com/2011/12/why-rj-
rummel-shouldnt-be-taken.html”

On the matter of the origin(s) of the Proto-Bulgars:

“The identity of the Proto-Bulgars has never been properly defined. Additionally, The
Bulgars using the title "khan" (hint: it was already mentioned that the only attested Bulgar
royal title from the primary sources is "kanasubigi" (which, some are "translating" through
the Slavic "knyaz u bogu", meaning "ruler by God", a phrase which itself is common in the
rest of the early Bulgar inscriptions written on Greek). The Bulgars being Turkic. I'm talking
about primary sources here, not modern historians who thought " they came from the East,
therefore they're Asians. And if they're Asians and probably nomadic, then they must be
Turkic-speakers and Tengri-worshippers." Or as one of the moderrn Bulgarian historians put
it: "Why are they Turkic? Because they worship Tangra. And why do they worship Tangra?
Because they're Turkic." In other words, circular reasoning. Besides, how can the Bulgars be
Turkic, considering they were first mentioned (in Europe, by the Romans, in the mid-4th
century) long before the first Turks even formed in their Asian homeland (6th century)? If
someone wants to argue about the Bulgars being potentially and partially descended from the
Huns (and/or the eventual later influences by other Turkic-speaking tribes, like the Avars,
Pechenegs, Cumans etc) - be my guest, that's a much more defensible point. But the classical
Turkic theory has fallen under so much disrepute by modern scholarship that basically there
are only two groups of scholars left still supporting it: communist old-timers and Westerners,
who make no researches on their own and are content in just repeating what the old-time
authorities had established as "the truth". In short, Proto-Bulgarians or 'Bulgars' weren't
Turkic, but they used certain Turkic vocabulary and military terminology. They most likely
originate in the North Caucassus and were linked to the late Sarmatian and post-Scythian
populations. After ~460 AD there were some Oghur Turkic infiltrations among the nobility
and Turkic influence in general, but the basis of the Bulgars is Indo-Iranian, not Turkic. One
just needs to take a look at the Madara rider - its composition and symbolism refer to the
Iranian cultural domain, not the Turkic one. Same goes for the treasures of Nad Sent Miklosh,
Mala Pereshcepina, the temple ruins of Pliska, as well as the burrial customs discovered in
the mounds of Devnya, Nozharevo, Tuhovishte and many others.

On the political ramifications of the Normanist theory of the foundation of the first Russian
state:

“History isn't the science of preserving existing knowledge, it's the science of uncovering the
past. When new evidence is discovered, it cannot be ignored. You're saying "it is a well-
known episode of the Russian chronicles" as if it's the ultimate argument, like it needs no
other proof, when in fact the chronicles themselves were not written by contemporaries of the
happenings they write about, but by someone who lived centuries later. Aside from that, your
entire theory rests of the opening paragraph, while ironically, it intentionally ignores the rest
of the chronicle’ content (especially the Rus-Byzantine treaties, which show that even Oleg
swore by Slavic gods, which rules out the possibility of “Slavicization”) It is important to
note that the document you're referring to is called "Primary Chronicle" or "Tale of Past
Years". There are no "Russian chronicles". It wasn't Vikings who were called to stop the
infighting among the Slavs, it was very specifically said that it was the Varyags and the Rus’.
That's the word used to describe them, and the interpretation of who Varyags and the Rus’
were and are at the heart of discourse about Rus’ origins. There are two dominant schools of
thought about creation of the Rus as a state. One is the Norman theory, which was given
motion by Swedish statesmen and historians in 18th century to proliferate the idea that Slavic
people were incapable of self organization and needed foreigners to rule over them - which is
the trend that continue well into modern times - and gave firmer footing to the concept that
Slavic people somehow owe their culture and heritage (and maybe even lands) to
Scandinavian nobility. At the very same time, staunch critics of Norman theory like
Lomonosov and Tatishchev have put forth theories of Obotrite (West Slavic) origin of Rurik
and his retinue (anti-Normanist school). Further on, the Austrian prince and historian
Sigismund von Herberstein proposed that Rurik was of Polabian Slavic decent, appropriately
noting that it was unlikely that northern Slavic tribes who routinely had to contend with
Viking raiders would invite someone of different culture, traditions and language to rule
them”.

On the matter of the origin of the Illyrians:

“Illyrians were not native to the Balkans. They were a central European culture that
penetrated the land south down to Albania. The so-called Hallstatt culture is associated with
them. Their remains, morphologically, as well as metrically, may without difficulty be
designated as being strictly of Indo-European variety. Matter of fact, the Austrian Hallstatt
series has close connections to it in two directions: first, with the local Bronze Age and
Neolithic populations of central Europe, which preceded it, and second, with the Germanic
"Reihengräber" people who followed it after a Keltic interruption. Matter of fact, the only
haplogroups that were ever discovered among them were the haplogroups of the R1b, E1b,
and J2b2 variety. Further on, for those who claim that Cromagnons were present as a
phenotype among Illyrians and other Paleo-Balcanic populations, they should know that there
is no continuity of UP type on Balkans (as evidenced by Illyrian samples which were
predominantly of Mediterranean and Nordic spectrum with strong Dinaric element increasing
over time), not to mention that I2a1b was neither found in ancient samples (while it was
predominantly found from Spain all the way to Estonia, with our specific clade, CTS10228,
thus far confined to Mesolithic Scandinavia), and even without all the ancient DNA its origin
is clear (e.g. its diversity is higher in northern Slavs, undifferentiated CTS10228* so far being
only found in man from Alsace-Lorraine, and even older clades such as more basal L621
(Disles) or its older brother clade (L161.1-Isles) being found predominantly in NW Europe
today).

On the position of Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire:

“The position of Jewish and Christian peoples under the Ottoman Empire is an issue that
continues to be a matter of heated debate, almost a century after the official end of the Empire
itself, and largely because Turks are simply too adamant to open up their archives. Religious
association typically determined status in the predominantly Muslim Ottoman Empire.
According to Moshe Ma’oz, Christians and Jews were seen as “inferior subjects or as
illegitimate denominations.” As a result, they were often discriminated against by the state
entity. In contrast, Muslim scholars may argue that the position of minorities under the
Ottomans was lenient compared to minority treatment elsewhere in the world, such as in
certain parts of Europe. In order to understand the position of Jews and Christians during the
era, their official statuses must be described. They were considered Ahl al-Kitab, or “people
of the book” (i.e., those who held monotheistic beliefs). As such, their treatment may have
differed from that of polytheistic believers under Ottoman rule, since Muslims accepted the
“prophets” of Christianity and Judaism. As a result, they were given state protection, or Ahl
al-Dhimma. This tradition of protection for minorities can still be seen today in modern day
Tehran. Many Christian communities still remain in Iran. Since officially recognized
religions still enjoy dhimma, the Christian communities are guaranteed protection from the
state. An example of this protection is the symbolic painting of a stern looking Ayatollah
Khomeini on the outside of an Armenian church in Tehran. The painting symbolizes the
Ayatollah’s protection over the church—that he sees to their security “personally.” They
enjoyed autonomy in religious affairs and also area such as education. In this sense, Jews and
Christians enjoyed certain privileges under Ottoman Rule that was not granted to minorities
in Europe, where Jews and Muslims were often persecuted or held back due to religious
prejudice. That is not to say, however, that Jews and Christians enjoyed complete freedom
under Islamic rule. They were seen as inferior by both the government and by many people.
Put in simplistic terms, the superiority complex held by Muslims in the Ottoman Empire can
likely be attributed to their acceptance of the Prophet Muhammad as the final prophet, a
belief that Christians and Jews did not aspire to. Their failure to do so may have caused
Muslim rulers to view them in a substandard capacity. As such, they were required to pay a
special poll tax, a jiyzya (for dummies, fat additional taxes). While they were allowed to hold
certain senior-level positions, such as financial advisers or physicians, they were always
required to hold only those positions subordinate to their Muslim counterparts. They were
even sometimes subjected to restrictions in dress, or were harassed by certain officials and
neighbors. This shows that despite the granting of dhimma to the Christians and Jews,
unofficial acts of prejudice were always condoned. There was a certain sense of social
segregation between Muslims and non-Muslims. Stereotypes categorizing Christians and
Jews were often utilized in proliferating the gap between them. Even in areas of close
proximity between the groups, where they lived and worked as neighbors, they were rarely
included in the communal “we” of the neighborhoods. Jews and Christians were very rarely
dealt with on an individual basis, instead they were clumped into a millet system, which dealt
with them as a community. For example, the Rabbi, in a millet-bashi, acted as the
administrative officer responsible for acting as representative for his community to the state.
Rather than collecting the jiyzya individually, they paid the state collectively, with a Chief
Rabbi administrating.

Further on, this was the case for all recognized Christian and Jewish communities. The millet
system allowed the respective communities to enjoy a certain level of administrative
autonomy under their representative. The millet leader may have held certain powers to
enforce and legislate laws. He also served to plead the causes of his community to the
Ottoman government. According to Roderic H. Davison, millets served to some extent as
“agents of change" (which, in later stages of the empire, served as a reason for lynching) who
helped bring about certain modernization and reformation in the Ottoman Empire. He
attributes this to the contact individuals within the non-Muslim millets had with Europe.
Armenians, Greeks and Jews helped to import the printing press into the Ottoman Empire.
The government also enforced changes in order to revive the Ottoman Empire, such as
improving the army and opening embassies in Europe. An 1856 decree from the Sultan
Abdülmecid established communal autonomy on the basis of equality, but left administrative
aspects of personal status, such as marriage and education, to the millets. This also enforced a
system of tax collection from all citizens (which was, again, met with lynching of the non-
Muslims and more discrimination), not just Christians and Jews, as well as a mandatory army
service for all. However, what happened in practice was a bit different, most Christians and
Jews response to army reforms was to pay a special tax exempting them from army duty,
rather than fulfilling the mandatory service. As such, in some cases, the millets were agents
of change in modernizing the Ottoman Empire, they acted as the “channels” or “filters” of
change. In others, they acted as opponents to reform to protect their own interests, such as in
the case of military service. According to Davison, acceptance of certain modernization by
non-Muslim millets also caused non-acceptance by Muslims on religious and anti-Western
grounds. Its true that the position of Christians and Jews under Ottoman rule can be debated
in historical constructs, but not as a way to ignore, or worse, trivialize historical facts. While
religious association often determined the social status of citizens, religious minorities were
usually treated with disdain or bias, even if that was against Ottoman laws. (2/2).
On Arthur Harris’s assessment of the German thesis of German-led, one-sided shelling:

"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb
everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and
half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the
wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."
On the the decision of the Senate of the Dubrovnik Republic of 2 July 1376 on states of the
social division of the population of Bosnia on - Bosnians and Vlachs :

“Nakon preuzimanja Vlaha u novoosvojenim dijelovima srednjovjekovne bosanske države u

donjem i srednjem Polimlju, dijelu Podgorja, Travuniji, Gornjoj Zeti, dijelu zapadnog Huma i
njegovim ostalim dijelovima, prema pisanim spomenicima iz druge polovine XIV stoljeća,
koji su sačuvani u Državnom arhivu u Dubrovniku, stanovnici Bosne svrstani su u dva
društvena sloja: ljude (Bošnjani ili Bosanci) i Vlahe (drustveno-ekonomska, ne etnicka
kategorija).”

On the matter of the futility of the “Normanist Contraversy” :

“There is no point in erroneously attempting to equate the Varangians to the Rus', for the
Normanist theory is just that, a theory, the only reason why it regarded as “factual” is because
of its content’s sociopolitical potency against the West’s longstanding enemy - Russia. The
Varangians have only played a minor part in the founding of Russia, and they shouldn't be
confused with the Rus', for even the Primary Chronicle (the Laurentian Codex) treats them as
two separate, unrelated entities (the Primary Chronicle states that their homeland is between
the Poles and the Baltic Prussians). Their impact in Old Russia is negligible at best, for the
Varangians who've originally settled Russia were numbered only in a few hundred, including
women and children, and on top of that, there is not a single town, fort, or temple of theirs
that was founded by them in Russia, with the exception of a single district in Novgorod. If
they've left a "great impact", then why hasn't anything of theirs survived the ages? Neither
have they formed the nobility of the Rus', for the native, tribal nobility was already present
and fully integrated into the Rus’ state, and were, and still are, overwhelmingly the bearers of
the haplogroups that are of the West-Eurasian Slavic origin. It should also be noted that not
even the Rurikids were Varangian, for Rurik and his family was of the Rus', I repeat, the
Primary Chronicle, the chief source on Early Russian and Rurikid history states that the
Varangians and the Rus' weren't the same, but separate people (Not even the Germanic Sagas
consider the Rus’ to be a part of the Norse people). Matter of fact, even according to
molecular genetics, the historical Rurikids, those who were direct paternal descendants of
Rurik, weren't Norsemen, for they were bearers of the following haplogroups - of which the
first two are the two most widespread paternal lineages among Slavs: the haplogroup I2a1b -
the clan of the princes Svyatopolk-Chetvertinskikh, ascending to the Turovopin Rurikovich-
Izyaslavichi, the lineage of Gleb, his father Sviatoslav II and his brother Iziaslav (his modern,
paternal descendants are bearers of the haplogroup I2a1b), through their father Yaroslav, who
was the son of Vladimir, who was the son of Sviatoslav, who was the son of Igor – the sole
surviving son of Rurik. The haplogroup R1a1 - the princes of Verkhov, and the clans of
princes who descend from Vsevolod who’re N1c1 - of unknown, presumably Norwegian or
Danish origin. It is also of paramount importance to mention that the Sviatopolk-
Czetwertinski, one of the surviving thirteen PLC magnate families, who draw direct descent
from the historical Rurikids, are bearers of the haplogroup I2a1b, even all of the confirmed
historical Rurikids bore Slavic Y-DNA, of whom Gleb Sviatoslavich, who was carrying
I2a1b-Din, is the oldest sample of a historical Rurikid to, and the paternal grandson of
Yaroslav the Wise.

Regarding Oleg, Oleg of Novgorod was the prince of the Rus', not the Varangians. The
adjective "Varangian" was a purported demonym added to the men of the Rurikid dynasty by
19th century Russian, Swedish and German Normanists. Last but not least, The Primary
Chronicle relates that in the year 6415 (907 AD) the Rus prince Oleg made a peace treaty
with the Byzantine Empire and by taking his men to the shrines and swearing by their
weapons and by their god Perun, and by Veles, they confirmed the treaty. We find the same
form of confirmation of a peace treaty by prince Igor in 945, and by prince Sviatoslav in 971.
In 980, when prince Vladimir the Great came to the throne of Kiev, he erected statues of five
pagan gods in front of his palace which he soon thereafter discarded after his Christianization
in 988. Perun was chief among these, represented with a silver head and a golden mustache.
Vladimir's uncle Dobrinja also had a shrine of Perun established in his city of Novgorod.
After the Christianization of the Rus’, this place became a monastery, which, quite
remarkably, continued to bear the name of Perun. Matter of fact, there is not a single temple
found in Russia dedicated to any Norse god, neither name nor places. The Normanists
rationalize that by claiming that the Russes/Slavs, the Varangians, and the Greeks didn’t
distinguish Thor from Perun, but that is refuted by the content of the Black Grave – remains
of two Varangian men, their equipment, and a religious, dark-bronze idol of Thor, which
doesn’t just refute the aforementioned thesis, but also proves that Thor was worshiped as a
separate deity, and only by the Norse Varangians. Not just that, but propagating the idea that
the Rus' was the result of the involvement of foreign, Norse-like people is both erroneous and
opposing to the base of rules of the founding of organized nations. Further on, in 1914, the
Swedish archaeologist T. J. Arne argued for a mass Viking age Scandinavian colonization of
Eastern Europe. Arne's theories remained largely unchallenged until the 1940's, when anti-
Normanism, in part a reaction to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, was proclaimed
official Soviet state dogma. Postwar USSR witnessed a golden age for Soviet archaeology,
with the state sponsorship of thousands of archaeological excavations. Key to the anti-
Normanist position were the excavations at Gnezdovo and Staraya Ladoga, near Smolensk
and Novgorod respectively. Normanists considered both to be Scandinavian settlements, but
Soviet archaeologists (Artsikhovsky, Avdusin, Ravdonikas) have proven that there is minimal
evidence for Scandinavian residence at these sites. Based on the aforementioned revelations,
and in light of empirical proof gathered by veritable historians and archaeologists, it is only
appropriate to abandon dogmatic “conventions”, for they’ve proven to be categorically, or at
least largely false, hence why the "aforementioned conventions" made by those who ignore
opposing proof for the sake of the furthering of their people’ agenda and interests, like the
Swedes and Germans, are of arbitrary worth to history. History, largely thanks to archaeology
and molecular biology, is an ever-growing and precise science, which actively rewrites the
parts that have been proven to be wrong or impossible to agree upon. Empirical proof trumps
"conventions", and it's a shame that Normanists have failed to understand that.
An important detail that everyone ignores is that the earliest Arab sources, such as Ibn-
Khurradadhbih, also explicitly mention the Rus to be 'one of the Slavic peoples. The whole
mantra that Rurikids were Scandinavians starts with the Normanist theories in the 18th
century, furthered by 'Romanovs' (not the original line of the Romanovs to boot) and Gerhard
Friedrich Muller, and was opposed by most sane-minded members of Russian intelligentsia),
even by paternal Rurikids themselves (like Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev). This is the reason
why Normanists rely mostly on ambiguous authority like "consensus" and "accordance", and
adhere to "conventions” and “established authorities” rather than conclusive proof, for they're
aware of the fact that their theory is not substantiated by the latter. On a side note, proof
should not be confused for evidence, for the former is conclusive, while the latter isn’t.
Normanist historiography traditionally prefers the ambiguity of liberal interpretations backed
by consensus by antonomasia to the conclusiveness of proof, due to its openness to favorable
interpretation. That isn’t just a sign of an exhausted school of thought, but of one that cannot
defend its assessments, due to how easily they’re being refuted by modern archaeological
excavations, recent results of Rurikid paternal lineages uncovered by molecular biology, and
even contemporary proof from that era, like the aforementioned treaties. While we're on the
issue of the treaties, Oleg was Rurik' immediate successor (since he was immediate, the
argument of “Slavicization” is moot), so why was he, as an alleged Norseman, swearing to
Slavic gods like Perun and Veles instead of the Norse Gods? Matter of fact, why were all
Rurikids swearing by Perun and Veles, if they were, according to Normanists, not Slavs?”

On the Serbs:

Timur: Timur admired the Serbian troops who according to him "fight like lions".

German General, August von Mackensen: “Violence of the big and powerful can often be
turned against them. The best example that can not be above the small torturing is an example
of a small Serbian nation, which put an end to an empire that lasted almost a thousand years,
you’re not going to the Italian, Russian, or French front. You are going into battle against a
new enemy - dangerous, tough, fearless and sharp. You are going to the Serbian front and
Serbia. Serbs are people who love their freedom, and who will fight to the last man. Be
careful this small enemy does not cast a shadow on your glory and compromise your
successes.”

Kaiser Wilhelm: "New balance was best described by German Emperor Wilhelm II in his
telegram to Bulgarian Tsar Ferdinand I: “Disgraceful! 62,000 Serbs decided the war!". On 29
September 1918, the German Supreme Army Command informed Kaiser Wilhelm II and the
Imperial Chancellor Count Georg von Hertling, that the military situation facing Germany
was hopeless."

Jean-Paul Belmondo: It is important that a nation through the ages many temptations retain
his innate temperament and their traditional symbolism. Serbs as a few in this part of Europe
have succeeded.

Franc List: Serbs have much in common with the Scots. Faithful to its tradition, are deeply
respected. Could a hundred years to live under someone's wing, but not to forget their
identity. Possess exceptional hospitality and love all who visit. On the other hand, are also
stubborn and difficult to change their minds, but the women do not show excessive
tenderness.”
On the belief that only party members could’ve risen through Yugoslav ranks:

“Nekoliko slučajnih primjera iz vremena vladavine Josipa Broza Tita i Saveza komunista koji
demantuju glasine i laži vladajućih partija u zemljama nekadašnje Jugoslavije. Pošto
vlastodršci u ovom dijelu Balkana dolaze na vlast lažnim obećanjama, a zavedenim i glupim
biračima to nikakao ne dolazi u glavu, jasno je da će laž i dalje biti glavno oružje partija da se
dođe na vlast i da će se svim sredstvima i svirepo boriti da tu vlast što duže zadrže. Za četvrt
vijeka takozvane demokratije na Balkanu pokazalo se da vlastodršci nisu ni najbolji, ni
najpametniji ljudi, već su to najčešće pohlepne, koristoljubiive i nemoralne osobe. Postalo je
pravilo da se u zemljama nekadašnje Jugoslavije odmah po dolasku na vlast raspodijele
funkcije i dobro plaćena mjesta: za tren oka na najvažnija rukovodeća mjesta u državi,
privredi, prosvjeti i kulturi i društvenim institucijama dolaze isključivo članovi vladajuće
partije. U borbi za vlast papagajski se govori kako su u vrijeme vladavine Josipa Broza Tita i
Saveza komunista jedino partijci mogli biti na rukovodećim mjestima. Današnje partijske
glavešine i prije i poslije izbora to ponavljaju ne da bi iskorijenili takvu praksu nego da bi to
isto radili bez imalo srama: gotovo na svako radno mjesto postavljaju svoje ljude. Ima
izuzetaka, ali oni su tu da potvrde pravilo i politiku partija i vlastodršaca.

Predsjednik stranke kada postane šef države ili vlade na prečac dobro uhljebljuje svoju
suprugu, djecu, brata ili sestru, a često su tu i sestrići, tečići, rođaci, kumovi i bliski prijatelji.
Iskreno rečeno, imali su od koga i da nauče. Slobodan Milošević je vladao zajedno sa svojom
suprugom, sinu je namještao sumnjive, ali dobro plaćene poslove, brata je postavio za
ambasadora u Moskvi, a bulumenta njegovih prijatelja bili su na rukovodećim položajima u
državi i privredi koji su zajedno pljačkali svoj narod i pare slali u inostrane banke, na Kipar
ili u Švajcarsku, na primjer. Pitanje na koje još niko neće da odgovori: od čega žive Mirjana
Marković, Slobodanova žena, i njen sin u najelitnijem i najskupljem dijelu Moskve?

Franjo Tuđman je odmah po dolasku na vlast , zna se, postavio svoga sina za šefa tajnih
službi Hrvatske, unuku je formirao banku, kćerki omogućio da otvori ekskluzivne butike po
Zagrebu. Gospođa Ankica, Franjina supruga, za koju je on rekao da ''hvala Bogu nije ni
Srpkinja i ni Židovka'' pridružila se poglavaru Hrvatske u prikupljanju velikih svota dolara,
maraka, funti i drugih novčanica iz dijaspore koje su bile kobojagi namijenjene za humane
svrhe, prije svega za bolesnu i siromašnu djecu, a ostale su, u stvari, u užem porodičnom
krugu. To su uvidjele i gospođe Rajka Karadžić na Palama i kasnije Dragica Nikolić u
Beogradu, pa su i one postale brižne žene za djecu u svojim zemljama. Vidjesmo kakva
bijaše ta briga: sve je više neishranjene, gladne i bolesne djece, a ni danas se ne zna gdje se
izgubiše te pare. Još nije bio ni ušao u zgradu Predsjedništva BiH, Alija Izetbegović je kao
predsjednik Bosne i Hercegovine već imenovao svoju kćerku za sekretaricu, sin je ubrzo
postao direktor nekog lijevog zavoda, na dobro plaćenoj funkciji. I hanuma Izetbegović se
bavila humanitarnim radom: u Turskoj i drugim muslimanskim zemljama prikupljala je pare
za rat u Bosni i često svojim dobrotvorima govorila da odvoje po jednu vrećicu zlata za njenu
porodicu. Jedan bošnjački portal nedavno je objavio da se bogatstvo Bakira Izetbegovića
mjeri milionima dolara. I Bakirov kolega po dužini vladanja Milorad Dodik napravio je vile
po Dedinju i Laktašima. Pohlepni vlastodršci Slobodan Milošević, Franjo Tuđman, Alija
Izetbegović i njihovi brojni batinasi primjeri su koji pokazuju koliko je velika korpa prljavih
plodova ove demokratije koju imamo već dvadeset i pet godina. A bilo je vrijeme kada se
vladalo i radilo poštenije i kada na rukovodeća mjesta nisu bili postavljani samo partijski
kadrovi, nego obrazovani, pametni, sposobni i pošteni ljudi. To vrijeme je bilo u Jugoslaviji.
U Sarajevu direktor ''Eneregoinvesta'' Emerik Blum napravio je kompaniju kojoj su vrata
svijeta bila širom otvorena. Na veb stranici posvećenoj ovom stručnjaku, koji je studije
elektrotehnike završio u Pragu, na nekoliko mjesta piše da nije pripadao nijednoj partiji, a
ponegdje piše da je bio član SKJ. Moj prijatelj Nijaz Vejzović kazao mi je jednom da je
Blum, prilikom boravka u Doboju na sjednici Radničkog savjeta fabrike ''Trudbenik'', istakao
da radnici '''Energoinvesta'' pred kapijama fabrika treba da ostave članstvo u partiji,
nacionalnost i religiju i da unutar kolektiva nose samo svoje sposobnosti, stručnost, znanje i
poštenje. U ''Energoinvestu'' je u Blumovo vrijeme bilo zaposleno pedeset hiljada radnika, a
svoje proizvode i tehnologiju prodavali su na svih pet kontinenata. Često su i strani državnici
prilikom boravka u Jugoslaviji u programu imali i posjetu ''Energoinvestu''.

Samo iz mog Doboja, iz Fabrike dalekovodnih stubova i konstrukcija ''Energoinvesta''

napravljeno je mnogo poslova u Americi, Aziji i Africi. Dalekovodni stubovi iz Doboja
postavljani su u Arizoni, Juti i Nevadi na hiljade i hiljade kilometara, u Indoneziji takođe, u
Libiji isto tako. Fabrika kompresora i pneumatskih alata ''Trudbenik'' u Doboju, u sastavu
''Energoinvesta'', plasirala je svoje proizvode po Evropi i Sovjetskom Savezu, i u Americi
takođe. Direktor ''Trudbenika'' sa dvije hiljade zaposlenih radnika bio je Ferid Smailbegović,
a nije bio član Saveza komunista.

U fabrikama ''Eneregoinvesta'' nekada je radilo šest hiljada inženjera, a za dvije decenije u

socijalizmu ovaj kombinat je stipendirao 12.000 studenata! Alija Izetbegović, njegov sin
Bakir i ostala SDA bratija uspjeli su u Sarajevu da ''Energoinvest'' svedu na svega 650
zaposlenih radnika! U Doboju je poslije Drugog svjetskog rata nekoliko godina direktorica
Gimnazije bila Danica Puškarević i nije pripadala Partiji, pa čak ni Socijalističkom savezu.
Bio sam član Savjeta Gimnazije u Doboju neposredno poslije navodno demokratskih izbora u
Bosni. Na mjesto direktora Gimnazije trebalo je da bude izabran profesor, musliman. Na
sjednici Savjeta imali smo zadatak da verifikujemo izbor direktora koji inače nije bio član
nijedne partije, a prije toga ni Saveza komunista. Na skup je došao i predstavnik Stranke
demokratske akcije. Odmah na početku rasprave je rekao da to mjesto pripada njima i oni
imaju svoga kandidata. Kandidat muslimanske stranke nije ispunjavao sve potrebne uslove za
direktora, ali bio je član SDA. Predstavnik Stranke je bio uporan, ali ni ja se nisam dao i
rekao sam: ''Ne znam u čemu je problem, jer naš kandidat je profesor, musliman, ima sve
uslove da bude direktor i podršku svih članova Savjeta''. Istina, kandidat Savjeta Gimnazije
za direktora imao je jedan nedostatak: žena mu nije bila muslimanka. Ubrzo je izbio rat i ne
znam gdje su i kako završili kandidati za direktora.

Direktor Privredne banke u Doboju, koja je pokrivala desetak opština sjeverne Bosne, više od
petnaest godina bio je Cvjetko Lazić, koji nikada nije pripadao partiji na vlasti. Kada je i
treći put trebalo da bude izabran za direktora jedne od najuspješnijih banaka u Bosni i
Hercegovini izmišljena je neka afera i Lazić je smijenjen i zatvoren, a na njegovo mjesto tada
je došao član partije. Ni Jaroslav Kudera, rođeni Tuzlak, direktor Tvornice natron papira i
kartonske ambalaže ''Natron'' u Maglaju, najveće na Balkanu, nije bio u Partiji. Ova fabrika
imala je nekoliko hiljada zaposlenih radnika i izvozila svoje proizvode po cijelom svijetu. U
ovom gradu nepartijci su bili direktori u preduzećima ''Autoprevoz'' i ''Pobjeda'' – Marjan
Sović i Šerif Zupčević i šef Poreske uprave u opštini Mitar Milojević.

U Orašju na Savi direktor Preduzeća za proizvodnju i otkup duvana, koje je bilo u sastavu
Tobačne tovarne u Ljubljani, Hamdo Mehmedalić je svakog dana u podne išao u džamiju.
Bio je to direktor koji je sve mlade ljude iz Orašja, koji završe fakultet, primao na posao, a
prije pola vijeka ovo preduzeće imalo je najljepši restoran društvene ishrane u Bosni i
Hercegovini u koji su često dolazili i poljoprivrednici, prozvođači duvana. Derventa je
postala poznata u Evropi po svojim cipelama. Direktor Tvornice obuće nepune dvije decenije
bio je Dževad Alibegović koji je od male esnafske obućarske radnje napravio fabriku čije su
ženske cipele redovno osvajale nagrade na sajmovima mode u Milanu, Parizu i Beogradu. To
je bila i prva fabrika u Bosni i Hercegovini u kojojoj je radilo više od hiljadu žena i kolektiv
koji je zapošljavao dvije hiljade i stotinu radnika. Pet-šest godina pred rat Tvornica obuće u
Derventi počela je da proizvodi cipele i za jednu od najpoznatijih kompanija u svijetu - Eko u
Danskoj. Alibegović nije bio član Saveza komunista.

U Oriovcu, selu kod Slavonskog Broda, radila je Tvornica namještaja ''Oriolik'' čiji je
direktor bio Mata Gabrić, nepratijac. Namještaj iz Oriovca je bio tražen u cijeloj Jugoslaviji i
inostranstvu. Po svojim idejama i maštovitim prozvodima moglo bi se reći da je ''Oriolik'' bio
preteča današnje švedske kompanije IKEA. Moj prijatelj Drago Kuffner, nepartijac, bio je
direktor Tvornice strojeva za obradu drva ''Bratstvo'' u Zagrebu, jednog od najuspješnijih
preduzeća u Hrvatskoj, sa 462 zaposlena radnika. Neposredno pred rat otišao je u penziju.
Pripadao je generaciji obrazovanih i sposobnih ljudi koja je odbačena i nije bila važna novoj
HDZ vlasti. Imao je malu penziju i teško je živio, a ''Bratstvo'' je spalo na trideset radnika.
Ovo je nekoliko slučajnih primjera iz vremena vladavine Josipa Broza Tita i Saveza
komunista koji demantuju glasine i laži vladajućih partija u zemljama nekadašnje Jugoslavije.
Pošto vlastodršci u ovom dijelu Balkana dolaze na vlast lažnim obećanjama, a zavedenim i
glupim biračima to nikakao ne dolazi u glavu, jasno je da će laž i dalje biti glavno oružje
partija da se dođe na vlast i da će se svim sredstvima i svirepo boriti da tu vlast što duže
zadrže. Platon je govorio ko zadobije vlast, izgubi pamet. Prije će biti da izgubi dušu i srce.”
On the matter of the analysis of possible British involvement in the start-up of World War II:

“Great Britain, as a world empire, has always fought every Continental power that
demonstrated real potential for attaining the status of a rival to British Imperialism. Thus,
England fought Spain or France and, with the rise of a strong German nation state in the late
XIXth century, England would fight Germany. England never fought Continental wars alone,
always in a coalition. England only fought colonial wars alone and lost only one in the last
250 years – to General George Washington. England fought colonial wars alone against
inferior peoples, often using these peoples as cannon fodder in order to limit the amount of
English bloodshed. England fought Continental wars in coalitions, recognizing that
Continental rivals were not inferior and required different means to tame. England
endeavored never to fight first, but to let others bleed, and then fight last in order to dictate
terms as the strongest party. Since 1863, England had used the Polish question to aggravate
its continental rivals. The British war guarantee to Poland in 1939 was one in a long line of
guarantees and declarations misunderstood by Poles as a sign of friendship. In point of fact,
England desired a war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in order to reduce these
potential rivals for world domination to containable proportions. Poland stood in the way of
this British ambition, thus England endeavored to eliminate Poland by all means possible in
order to create a Nazi-Soviet border in hopes of bringing about a Nazi-Soviet war. England,
particularly Winston Churchill, not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, is to blame for the
invasion and destruction of Poland. Cat’s thesis appears to us as the height of revisionism, but
it cannot qualify as revisionist history because it was written immediately after World War II
by a man whose political experience cannot be questioned even if his conclusions are suspect
or shocking. Yet these conclusions are the stuff ofcareful historical analysis of facts. To
understand these facts, it is necessary to recognize the key factor which allowed British
intrigue to turn Hitler’s guns on Poland in 1939: Polish stupidity manifested, as Cat explains,
in the Polish view of war rooted in the middle ages notion of an honorable duel between
knights”.
On Tesla’s spirituality and understanding of the necessity of wireless communication:

“What we now want is closer contact and better understanding between individuals and
communities all over the earth, and the elimination of egoism and pride which is always
prone to plunge the world into primeval barbarism and strife. Peace can only come as a
natural consequence of universal enlightenment. The greatest scientists of the world were
also very spiritual. Science and spirituality are both essential for revealing the truth and
changing humanity.”

On the factors that had contributed to the success of the Germanic takeover of Western
Rome:

“Firstly, Germanic tribes arrived in the Empire as vassals, pushed by other tribes that came
from Jutland and Scandinavia (ex, the Goths), they just wanted to find a place where settle
and find protection (not to mention, their main desire was to bathe in Roman thermae and
have the privileges and security of Roman citizens). We have to remember that the late
Roman Empire experienced long times of instability due to power struggles between military
commanders (the "Military anarchy" of 235-283 resulting in the split of the Empire in Eastern
and Western), not to mention various secessionist revolts in the Middle East and the
hyperinflation crisis, the so called "III century crisis". In this period the Germanic tribes for
the first time decided to come together in confederations, like the Alemanni and the Franks,
primarily to defend themselves against the incursions of Jutland people and the Sarmatians,
and in many cases they raided the regions behind the limes but they never had the force to
defeat a huge military machine like the Roman army, nor they wanted to, their first aim being
to raid resources to face the invasions of other people (a similar situation had happened
during the Marcomannic Wars of 167-189, with a series of minor wars against Germanic and
Sarmatian people along the limes, won by Rome). After Diocletianus came to power, ending
the military anarchy, he had the idea to let some Germanic people (that were renowned
warriors) to settle in Gaul, at the time wasted by the civil war that saw the end of the
secessionist state of Gaul and Britannia established by Postumus in 259 AD., to rebuild it and
to use them as soldiers as part of his army, a decision caused also by the long war against
Zenobia's Kingdom of Palmyria, where the tribes in question could be sent to the Middle East
to fight the Sasanid menace. To the Germanic people who've settled in the Empire, they were
granted imperial protection and citizenship, in exchange for their entry and service in the
army as auxiliary (the term is "Foederati"). They did well in their wars against other
Germanic tribes, as they knew very well their tactics and strategies of war, while being
equipped with more robust and better forged weapons provided by the Roman Army. As time
passed by, the strong military tradition and the fact that they perfectly knew how to manage
the diplomacy between fellow Germanic tribes behind the border, they reached the
commanding levels of the army. By the time the Empire fell, they composed more than the
50% of the Roman army. Due to an economic crisis, many times the stately apparatus had
stopped to pay reparations to the army, so obviously the army rebelled. And the army was
mostly composed of Romanized Germanics. The sacks of Rome, starting with the one
conducted by the troops of Alaric in 410, were due to the lack of satisfaction of the troops
and the struggle of power between generals (as an example, the sack of 410 was triggered by
the refusal to appoint Alaric as commander in chief of the Roman army, and the final sack of
476 conducted by Odoacer was due to the refusal to give his veterans land in Italy). It was a
line of army rebellions, most of the Germanic troops in the army were Romanized and
Christian (Odoacer and his Heruli were). It was only after the fall of central authority that
many of the strongholds were abandoned and the Germanic tribes had the opportunity to
roam the lands, like for example, what happened in Britannia with the Angles and Saxons.
Considering the Huns, they were surely part of the problem, but they didn't do it alone. There
was also a great pressure in North Africa (Moors), the Middle East (Sasanids), Northern
Britannia (Scots and Picts), and eastern Balkans (Sarmatians), not to mention the Germanic
federations. But most of all it was the long period of internal civil wars which finished off
the Roman army and the state itself, that caused the need to supplement the losses with
Germanic immigrants.”

Regarding the favorable and veiled German media portrayal of Croatian terrorists:

“Those weren't “German civilians”, but members of various terrorist organization that've
posed an imminent threat to Yugoslavia' safety and stability, and the report omits the terrorist
activities of the Croatian “political emigrants”, like planting bombs on passenger jets that
exploded over Czechoslovakia, planting bombs into a cinema in Belgrade, killing the
Yugoslav ambassador in Sweden and assassinating the Turkish ambassador in Yugoslavia.
This particular topic is well substantiated and heavily in Yugoslavia' favor, and no amount of
whitewashing hidden beneath a veneer of “unbiased” journalism will change that. The
portrayal of double agents, terrorists and exiled fascists as sympathetic figures is textbook
revisionism.”

On the matter of the hollowness of the Nuremberg process:

“Nirmberski proces je taman dobar koliko i Haaski procesi. Osudjeno je 0.00001% krivih
Njemaca po nekakvoj komandnoj odgovornosti, a Rusima koji su pobili gotovo isto ljudi
koliko i Hitler, niko nije ni sporekao to. Isto tako, niko nije sudio ni za saveznicka
bombardovanja civila pred kraj rata, niko nije sudio ni Caru Hirohitu, iako je 20 miliona
Kineza stradalo kao direktna posljedica rata (8 miliona ubijeno direktno od strane Japana),
niko nije sudio (izuzev vrlo neselektivnih komunista po istocnom bloku) ni svim
kolaboracionistickim vladama tadasnje Evrope, zemlje Juzne Amerike su objerucke
prihvatale mozda i vece zlikovce od ideologa nacizma, SAD je pokupila kompletnu naucnu
elitu tadasnje Njemacke, ovjde Slobodna Evropa diskutira o Nirmberskom procesu kao o
nekom svetom gralu pravde. Da se dogodio pravi Nirmberski proces, drzava Njemacka ne bi
postojala ni sada, vec bi bila razdjeljena medju saveznicima, kao vid ratne reparacije, mnogo
mnogo Njemaca, Italijana, Japanaca, Finaca, Madjara, Spanaca, Francuza, Hrvata, Rumuna,
Srba, Albanaca, Bugara itd bi bilo osudjeno za direktno komandovanje ili cinjenje ratnih
zlocina, novcem ili teritorijom bi se placale ratne reparacije i drzave poput Njemacke bi bile
svedene na politicku i egzistencionalnu marginu. Umjesto toga, 20ak osudjenih Nemaca, 45
miliona mrtvih civila na stranama saveznika, 0 osudjenih Japanaca, 0 osudjenih Rusa, 0
osudjenih svih drugih (izuzev vrlo opskurnih komunistickih sudova). I takav Nirmberski
proces danas sudi u Haagu, nekakvim vojnim stratezima koji crtaju neke linije po nekim
mapama, nekakvim politicarima i ideolozima sto su dramatizirali i slicni takvi dan-danas
dramatiziraju o nekakvim istorijskim granicama, nekakvim vojnim administratorima.”

On the matter of the premise that Slavs arrived to Southeastern Europe as passive farmers:

Procopius, Book V, XXVII, 134:

"(...) This exploit, then, was accomplished by the Goths on the third day after they were
repulsed in the assault on the wall. But twenty days after the city and harbor of Portus were
captured, Martinus and Valerian arrived, bringing with them sixteen hundred horsemen, the
most of whom were Huns and Sclaveni and Antae, who are settled above the Ister River not
far from its banks. (...)"
Procopius about Slavic invaders capturing and enslaving a lot of Romans:
Procopius, Book VII, XIII - describing events in year 545 AD:
"(...) For a great throng of the barbarians, the Sclaveni, had, as it happened, recently crossed
the Ister, plundering the adjoining country and enslaved a very great number of Romans. (...)"
Procopius of Caesarea:
"(...) In Illyria and Thracia, from the Ionian Gulf to Byzantine surrounding cities, where
Hellas and Chersonese regions are situated, (...) the Sclavenes and the Antes, penetrating
practically every year since Justinian administering the Roman Empire, were inflicting
irreversible damage to their inhabitants. In each invasion I estimate 200,000 Romans were
either took as prisoners or killed (...)"

Procopius about Roman attempts to stop the Slavic invasion:

"(...) the Empire wasn't able to find just one only man just as brave to undertake this task."
Pope Gregory I in a letter to Exarch of Italy from year 599:
"(...) It deeply afflicts and disquiets me the Slavic nation that menace us. It afflicts me from
what I already suffer from you, it disquiets me because they have already started to penetrate
into the Italic peninsula through Istria. (...)"
And according to Priscus, in 610 Slavic tribes flooded into Greece.
Procopius of Caesarea:
"(...) Nay further, they [the Slavs] do not differ at all from one another in appearance. For
they are all exceptionally tall and stalwart men, while their bodies and hair are neither very
fair nor blond, nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type (...)".
Procopius of Caesarea:
"(...) In more or less the same time [549 - 550] a Slavic army (...) gathered itself together and
after crossing without encountering any resistance from anyone the river Ister [Danube], and
later with similar ease the river Heuros, it divided itself for two parts. (...) Commanders of
Roman garrisons in Illyria and Thrace fought against both those parts and even though they
had already separated from each other, the Romans suffered - contrary to their expectations -
a defeat, and some of them fell dead on the spot, while others found salvation in escaping.
(...) After all garrisons had suffered such defeats at the hands of either one or the other one of
barbarian armies, one of enemy bands fought against troops of Asbadus. He was a member of
Emperor Justinian's personal guard (...) and he led a numerous and elite force of cavalry,
which had been garrisoned for a long time inside the Thracian stronghold of Tdzurulon. But
also, they were forced to retreat by the Slavs and most of them, shamefully escaping, got
slaughtered, while Asbadus himself was captured and temporarily left alive, but soon after
that the Slavs skinned him alive and threw him into a burning campfire. After that the Slavs
were plundering all neighbouring Thracian and Illyrian lands without any obstacles and both
of their two units captured many strongholds. (...) And those who had defeated Asbadus, later
plundered in turn everything up to the sea coast, and captured in an assault the coastal city of
Toperus (...) And they slaughtered 25,000 men, plundered everything, and enslaved all the
children and all the women. (...)"

John of Ephesus:
"(...) “That same year, being the third after the death of king Justin, was famous also for the
invasion of an accursed people, called Slavonians (Sclavenes), who overran the whole of
Greece, and the country of the Thessalonians, and all Thrace, and captured the cities, and
took numerous forts, and devastated and burnt, and reduced the people to slavery, and made
themselves masters of the whole country, and settled in it by main force, and dwelt in it as
though it had been their own without fear. And four years have now elapsed, and still,
because the king is engaged in the war with the Persians, and has sent all his forces to the
East, they live at their ease in the land, and dwell in it, and spread themselves far and wide as
far as God permits them, and ravage and burn and take captive. And to such an extent do they
carry their ravages that they have even ridden up to the outer wall of the city, and driven
away all the king’s herds of horses, many thousands in number, and whatever else they could
find. And even to this day, being the year 895 (A. D. 584), they still encamp and dwell there,
and dwell in peace in the Roman territories, and lead captive and slay and burn: and they
have grown rich in gold and silver, and herds of horses, and arms, and have learned to fight
better than the Romans, (...)"

Menander Protector:
"(...) About the fourth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius Constantine, some hundred
thousand Slavs broke into Thrace, and pillaged that and many other regions. As Greece was
being laid waste by the Slavs, with trouble liable to flare up anywhere, and as Tiberius had at
his disposal by no means sufficient forces, he sent a delegation to the Khagan of the Avars.
(...)"

Strategikon of Maurice:
"(...) They do not keep prisoners in perpetual slavery like other peoples, but they demarcate
for them a limited period of time, after which they give them a choice: they can return home
after purchasing their freedom, or stay among them as free people and friends. (...)"

“Strategikon of Maurice:
"...being freedom-loving, they are in no way inclined to become slaves or to obey, especially
in their own land." (Strategikon of Maurice, ed. prep. V. V. Kuchma. SPb., 2004, p. 189)”
Jordanes:
"(...) These people, as we started to say at the beginning of our account or catalogue of
nations, though off-shoots from one stock, have now three names, that is, Venedi, Antes and
Sclaveni. (...) they now rage in war far and wide, in punishment for our sins (...) Though their
names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni
and Antes. (...)"

Procopius of Caesarea:
"(...) Belisarius was eager to capture alive one of the men of note among the enemy, in order
that he might learn what the reason might be why the barbarians were holding out in their
desperate situation. And Valerian promised readily to perform such a service for him. For
there were some men in his command, he said, from the nation of the Sclaveni, who are
accustomed to conceal themselves behind a small rock or any bush which may happen to be
near and pounce upon an enemy. In fact, they are constantly practicing this in their native
haunts along the river Ister, both on the Romans and on the barbarians as well. (...)"
Abraham ben Jacob (a 10th century Sephardic Jewish traveler from Muslim Spain):
"(...) Slavic countries extend from the Mediterranean Sea to the Northern Ocean. (...)
Generally speaking, Slavs are warlike and violent, and if not for their internal discord and
lack of unity, no other nation would be able to match them in strength. (...)"

And about the arrival of the Croats and Serbs:

Constantine Porphyrogennetos, "De Administrando Imperio":
"(...) their ancestors were Pagan Croats and Serbs, known also as White [Croats and Serbs].
Great Croatia, called also White [Croatia], until today is still Pagan, just like neighboring
[Lusatian / West Slavic] Serbs [Sorbs] (...)"
Another excerpt - "De Administrando Imperio":
"(...) Therefore everyone, who would like to do research about Dalmatia, can read herein
about the way how the Slavic peoples took it. The Croats with their families came to
Dalmatia and found the Avars in possession of that land. After fighting against each other for
some time, the Croats defeated the Avars, partially murdered them and partially forced them
to submissiveness. Since that moment the country was seized by the Croats. (...)"
“Daurentius is the first Slavic chieftain to be recorded by name, by the Byzantine historian
Menander Protector, who reported that the Avar khagan Bayan I sent an embassy, asking
Daurentius and his Slavs to accept Avar suzerainty and pay tribute, because the Avars knew
that the Slavs had amassed great wealth after repeatedly plundering the Byzantine Balkan
provinces. Daurentius reportedly retorted that "Others do not conquer our land, we conquer
theirs [...] so it shall always be for us.”

Daurentius (to the Avar envoy): "Who is, then, the man which basks in sunlight that threatens
to conquer our strength? We are used to ruling over others, not to being ruled over - of that
we are certain for as long as wars are waged and swords are forged".

On the matter of the origin of the Kotromanic dynasty:

“The earliest mention of the name itself is from 1404, when the officials of the Republic of
Ragusa describe the family as being "old nobility", thus native. However, there are theories
that claim that the family itself is of German origin, relatives of the Hungarian king, but those
theories are poorly substantiated. In modern times, the overwhelming majority of historians,
such as Lajos Thallóczy and Ciro Truhelka, have rejected the theory of a German origin of
the Kotromanić, and instead argued that the family was indigenous to Bosnia, based on what
the oldest written sources have confirmed about the aforementioned dynasty.”

On the matter of theft of half a million art objects from Poland during World War II:

“In December 1939 a Viennese woman with chestnut brown hair walked triumphantly into
the National Museum in Kraków. Lora Waechter’s husband was the recently appointed Nazi
governor of Kraków: SS Gruppenführer Otto Waechter, she was decorating the new
headquarters that he had established at the city’s Potocki Palace – and in the process, she
looted every department of the museum. According to a Polish government assessment from
1946, Frau Waechter took “the most exquisite paintings and the most beautiful items of
antique furniture, militaria, etc, despite the fact that the director of the museum had warned
her against taking masterpieces for this purpose. An estimated half a million art objects were
plundered from Poland by the occupying Nazi and Soviet forces during the second world
war. Poland’s ministry of culture still keeps a vigilant watch for any that may turn up on the
international art circuit. Unable to force their current holders to return them, Poland often
finds itself having to buy the works at auction – sometimes from the descendants of those
who stole them. But Sunday will see a key moment in Poland’s decades-long effort to regain
its looted treasure, one that hopefully will set an example for other descendants of Nazi art
thieves. Horst Waechter, the fourth of the SS general’s six children, has spent years trying to
return a painting taken by his parents from the Potocki Palace. On Sunday, he will attend a
ceremony in Kraków at which three stolen works will be returned to the Polish government.
“This is probably the first time that the member of a family of one of the most important Nazi
occupiers is giving back art that was stolen from Poland during the war,” said Ryszard
Czarnecki, a vice-president of the European parliament and a member of the Polish Law and
Justice party.” Waechter, 78, will return three works that his mother stole: a painting of the
Potocki Palace, a map of 18th-century Poland, and an engraving of Kraków during the
Renaissance. The small painting by countess Julia Potocka (1818-1895) depicts Artur Potocki
bidding farewell from the balcony of the Potocki Palace to relatives who are departing in
horse-drawn carriages burdened with heavy luggage.
“My mother liked it very much,” said Waechter. “The painting always hung in the rooms she
inhabited. She took the painting out of the Potocki Palace – which was my father’s office – to
Austria where she furnished the house we were living in during the war.” An attempt some
years ago to return the painting to the Potocki family – the prominent Polish noble family
whose Kraków residence Otto Waechter usurped during the war – did not go well. The
Potockis “did not want to have anything to do with me as the son of a Nazi”, said Waechter in
an email from Schloss Haggenberg, the 17th-century castle where he resides in Austria.
About 68,000 Jews were expelled from Kraków in 1940 on the orders of Waechter, who the
next year created the Kraków ghetto for the 15,000 Jews who remained. Killings under his
orders continued when Hitler transferred him to become governor of Galicia in the Ukraine in
1942. Seventy-five years later, the Waechter surname still rings alarm bells in Poland. The
delicate task of negotiating the return of the painting was finally taken on by Magdalena
Ogórek, a Polish politician and historian who had conducted a series of interviews with Horst
Waechter for a book she is writing about his father. Ogórek had spotted the 17th-century map
of Kraków in a photograph accompanying an article about Waechter in the Financial Times.
When she asked Waechter about it, he admitted that his mother had stolen it, along with the
other works. I have to admit that I did not have to pressure Horst to return it, he wanted to
return it,” says Ogórek. The hard part turned out to be convincing officials in Poland to
negotiate with the son of such a notorious Nazi criminal. “Polish officials are reluctant to
have contact with the children of Nazis, but I convinced them that our obligation was to do
everything we could to return this painting to the city of Kraków.” Waechter says he is
returning the art works to honour the memory of his mother, who died in 1985. “I am not
especially proud of my deeds,” he said. “I do not return the objects for me, but for the sake of
my mother.”

In a 2015 documentary My Nazi legacy, Waechter admitted to the British lawyer and author
Philippe Sands that his mother was “proud” to be a Nazi. “She was convinced that my father
was right and did the right things. She never spoke one word bad about him. Despite his
clear-eyed approach to the looted artworks, Waechter maintains that his father was an
unwilling cog in the Nazi killing machine, a position that has won him many critics. My
father became doomed and murdered for something he never planned and executed himself,”
Waechter said. Otto Waechter died under mysterious circumstances in Rome in 1949 while
waiting to escape to Argentina, where many other Nazis had already found safe refuge. He
was administered the last rites by Austrian bishop Alois Hudal, one of the main churchmen
involved in rescuing Nazis from Allied justice. Ogórek believes Waechter may have been
murdered in Rome. “I have discovered a Hudal document in the Vatican secret archives that
shows he could have been poisoned,” says Ogórek. Another question is how many other
works of looted art might still be in the hands of families of other Nazi officers. I hope that
the return of this painting will encourage other families in possession of looted art to return
them instead of trying to sell them at auction,” said Czarnecki. As the son of a Nazi war
criminal, it is perhaps unsurprising that Horst Waechter has a dim view of humanity, one
which he says is confirmed by the rise of populist and racist movements across the Europe
and the US. In difficult times there have always been leaders who convince their followers
that the others – all those different from them in culture, language or faith – were responsible
for their troubles and that their community has to get rid of them. The Nazi period is
definitely doomed to repeat itself. No hope of getting all the vast collections of course, but it's
time to start seriously taking back what's possible. The law has changed in Germany however
making it impossible to claim artworks stolen in the war as it's too late.”

Further on the reasons that led to the dissolution of Yugoslavia:

“This conflict was seeded from the outside, just like Syria is today. Geopolitical aspirations
of the western elites are exactly why Yugoslavia had to be destroyed, especially not in a post-
Soviet world. All modern propaganda puts the blame only on the Serbs, for something which
was mostly inevitable.”
1) NATO struggled to stay relevant after the collapse of the USSR and so this war was
definitely something that the western powers welcomed to justify NATO's continued
existence and eventual expansion.
2) DEBT: Something that all newly created independent nations carved out of former
Yugoslavia now have in common -- extraordinary amount of debt. It's much easier to control
and persuade several small, weakened, indebted nations than it would ever be to control a
united and ideologically stable Yugoslavia as a whole. Why do so many people look for
simplistic answers to a very complicated problem? Why even bother pretending like one
ethnic group from Yugoslavia is perfect while the opposing one is flawed in every way? If
that were true, then explain to me how these people managed to live together for so many
years before the conflict? Why were there so many mixed marriages? Use some common
sense those of you who are hell bent on blaming only one side. The primary agents/tools of
foreign involvement were definitely most leading Serb nationalists. The very same group
which decried foreign involvement was indeed the most compromised. Milosevic was a tool
of the anti-communist "West". Prior to his meteoric rise to power, he was a bureaucrat in
Washington DC representing Yugoslavia at the IMF and the World Bank. He very effectively
destroyed the foundation of a united Yugoslavia all while claiming to protect it. During his
rule Serbia became a Neocon heaven on earth, with grotesque levels of pillage of his own
people. Some of these schemes included raiding the federal treasury to pay only Serbian
retirees (buying votes with other people money), while at the same time new banks popped
up and were promoted by state media channels offering people 30-40% interest on their
savings. These banks then defaulted within a few months literally stealing the entire savings
of the Serbian people, which then were taken to zones of British jurisdiction, like Cyprus.

On the matter of the modern state of Croatia and the omitted facts behind the fall of
Yugoslavia:

“Serbia and the former Yugoslavia, in an exact reprise of the fascist 1940s, have been
systematically attacked and dismembered by Germany and Austria since the 1980s.
Germany, without the support of other countries, the EU or the UN, joined the Vatican in
illegally recognising Croatia in 1991 which led to that State effectively declaring war on
Yugoslavia (of which it was a constitutional part) and on Serbs in Croatia. Reuters reported
the Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal as saying “The first refugees in the Yugoslav conflict were
the 40,000 Serbs who fled Croatia after a constitutional amendment defined them as an alien
minority.” In this the Croats had the full support of Germany and the Vatican – whose funds,
liberally deployed among American PR firms helped to spread pro-Croatia propaganda – so
avidly absorbed by, among others, the BBC.
The forthcoming trial of the French arms dealer Jacques Monsieur has brought to light an
important and hitherto denied fact – that Croat fascist secessionism was assisted by NATO
from the very beginning of the war. The arms embargo imposed on all post-Yugoslav states
was being broken regularly on behalf of the Croats with the knowledge and support of NATO
(1). French officers were involving in the clandestine training programme of Croat Special
Forces (2) and Roman Catholic charities such as the Medjugorje Appeal (found fraudulent
and de-registered in the UK) were involved in financing arms to the Croats. In December
2011 memorial masses were conducted in Zagreb and Split (and perhaps elsewhere as well)
to mark the 51st anniversary of the death of Ante Pavelic, the Fascist Head of the infamous
Independent State of Croatia from 1941 to 1945. The German Nazis and the Italian Fascist
regimes created a puppet State run by the local fascist movement, the Ustashe, headed by
Pavelic. He died in Franco’s Spain, in 1959 having fled Croatia through the Vatican “rat
lines” at the end of the war. The Ustashe established a vast system of concentration camps all
over Croatia including Jasenovac, where hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were
murdered in a variety of brutal ways, which earned the camp the nickname of the “Auschwitz
of the Balkans.” The tradition of honouring Pavelic began in the 1990’s following Germany’s
recognition of Croatia as an independent State. In the wake of the conviction in Zagreb of
Jasenovac commandant Dinko Sakic and in response to protests by the Wiesenthal Centre,
the mass was stopped and the priest responsible, Vjekoslav Lasic, left Croatia but returned a
few years ago. It is no myth that in 1997 Croatians greeted German troops with their right
arms raised in a Nazi salute as they chanted “Heil Hitler,” as reported in The Washington
Times at the time. Around the same time Newsweek reported that when German tanks passed
through Croatia as part of the NATO deployment to the Balkans, “Croatians greeted the
Germans with the straight-armed fascist salute,” an expression of solidarity dating back to the
1940’s (and as we know from the book “Fuehrer Ex” the 1990’s) alliance between Croat
fascists and German Nazis. The map of the Balkans drawn by the Nazis in 1942 is almost
identical to today’s map of the Balkans created by NATO. As A.M. Rosenthal wrote in “Back
from the Grave” in the New York Times on April 15, 1997: (And chronicled in detail in the
history of that period by the late Avro Manhattan) “In World War II, Nazi Germany had no
executioner more willing, no ally more passionate, than the Fascists of Croatia. They are
returning, 50 years later, from what should have been their eternal grave, the defeat of Nazi
Germany. The Western allies who dug that grave with the bodies of their servicemen have the
power to stop them, but do not. In modern Croatia many streets bear the names of 1940’s
fascists and there are vicious attacks on Serbs and non-Catholics. In April 2006 two reporters
for a Serbian newspaper were beaten up in Dubrovnik, Croatia. Their Serbian accent was
picked up while they were speaking to each other. They said they were lucky to be alive. In
2000 The Washington Post reported the following graffiti in Croatia: “We Croats do not
drink wine; we drink the blood of Serbs from Knin”.
Even Croats have been persecuted if they had a history of anti- fascism. In the Guardian of
14th July 2003 Julia Pascal reported: “I meet J, a 76-year-old Croatian who, at 15, ran to the
partisans. This war heroine fought Ustashe, Italians and Germans and still has a body full of
shrapnel fragments. President Franjo Tudjman withdrew the partisans’ pensions for six
months during the 199l war and her husband, once Tito’s bodyguard, starved to death.” In
2008 a well-known Croat journalist Ivo Pukanic was murdered by a car bomb. He joined the
ranks of other journalists who had been murdered or beaten up for investigating the murky
links between Croat criminals, politicians and businessmen.
“German Europe”, which (having destroyed the democratic nationhood of 26 other countries
in the European Union is now economically strangling to death the nations in the Euro-zone)
sees all this as natural and normal. Indeed, it usually is on the Continent when the German
State dominates it. In the January 2012 Croat referendum on EU membership, according to
Marjan Bošnjak of the Only Croatia Party, the same historically intervening powers
(Germany, the Vatican, the EU) were involved in the grossest manipulations. At the first-ever
referendum held in Croatia in 1991, the turnout had been 83.5%, of which 94% voted in
favour of independence. Changing the Croatian Constitution prior to the January 2012 EU
referendum to eliminate the 50% participation rule the Government mobilised the Roman
Catholic Church, German and Austrian owned media and EU propaganda to get a 66%
majority for EU membership. But the 43% participation rate meant that only 28% of the
Croatian people voted to surrender their democratic sovereignty.
The Government gave huge amounts of public funds to the YES campaign, whilst denying
any funding to the NO campaign. State Television, Croatia Post and the City of Zagreb
provided free or low-cost EU advertising to the Yes side. Just days before the referendum,
foreign minister Vesna Pusic shamelessly threatened Croatia’s 1.2 million pensioners that
they would lose their pensions if they voted against EU membership. So now Croatia, the
most overt representative of that 1940’s fascism, which it has extended by its recent
behaviour into the 21st century, is welcomed ceremoniously as a member of the European
Union while Serbia, whose people have suffered grievously and with a history of anti-fascism
and as an ally of Britain and the USA, is rejected. If the British political class still does not
understand what they have done then they are guilty not just of gross incompetence but of a
crime of historical dimensions for which a terrible price is being paid.”

Sources:

(1) http://www.paxamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/PROFILING-THE-FOX-A-
Counterintelligence-Profile-on-Arms-Trafficker-Jacques-Monsieur-PAI-EDITION2.pdf
(2) “Breaking the Arms Embargo”. Documentary shown on Press TV on 7th January 2012
contains admissions of high-ranking French secret service officers that France was actively
involved in

On the matter of the Bosancica:

“Bosančica je (kao varijanta ćiriličnog pisma) u upotrebi od 11. i 12. stoljeća. Ti dokumenti
su opće poznati. Bosančica se nije učila ni u kakvim školama. Samoučki se prenosila iz
naraštaja u naraštaj. Za razliku od drugih pisama, u njoj nije bilo ustaljenih (propisanih)
oblika slova. Nikad nije bio formiran njezin opći obrazac. Zanimljiva je po tome što je u
svakom kraju i u svakom pokoljenju bila pomalo drukčija. U njezinom oblikovanju
sudjelovao je pomalo svako tko se njome služio. To je pismo u upotrebi od 11. do početka 19.
stoljeća - najprije kao ustavni oblik ćirilice, potom kao kurzivni oblik. Kao domaće pismo za
privatnu upotrebu u muslimanskoj sredini se u porodičnom krugu čuvala i tokom cijelog 19.
stoljeća, u rijetkim porodicama čak i do polovice 20. stoljeća. Zanimljiv je primjer Mehmed-
bega Kapetanovića Ljubušaka (dugogodišnjeg sarajevskog gradonačelnika), koji je cijeloga
života sve što je pisao uglavnom pisao bosančicom.”

A list of Croatian enterprises that predate the founding of Yugoslavia:

Belišće Belišće, 1884 Koestlin Bjelovar, 1905 Čakovečki mlinovi, Čakovec 1893, Čateks
Čakovec 1874, Međimurska trikotaža Čakovec 1923, MTČ Čakovec 1923, Vajda Čakovec
1911, Belje Darda 1911, Dalit Daruvar 1905, Daruvarska pivovara Daruvar 1893, Pamučna
industrija Duga Resa 1891, Dalmacija Dugi Rat 1908, Đakovština Đakovo 1921, DIK
Đurđenovac 1895, Karlovačka pivovara Karlovac 1854, KIO Karlovac 1903, Lola Ribar
Karlovac 1932, Cemex Kaštela 1904, TOP Kerestinec 1922, Podravka Koprivnica 1934,
Brodogradilište Kraljevica 1729, Mlinar Križevci 1903, Cetina Omiš 1930, Drava tvornica
žigica Osijek 1856, Kandit Osijek 1920, Karolina Osijek 1909, Osječka pivovara Osijek
1856, Saponia Osijek 1894, Tvornica šećera Osijek 1905, Gavrilović Petrinja 1690, IGM
Ciglana Petrinja 1920, Sardina Postire 1907, Zvečevo Požega 1921, Brionka Pula 1942,
Brodogradilište Uljanik Pula 1856, Brodogradilište 3. Maj Rijeka 1892, Istra cement Pula
1925, Torpedo Rijeka 1853, Tvornica papira Rijeka 1821, Viktor Lenac Rijeka 1896, Mirna
Rovinj 1877, Tvornica duhana Rovinj 1872, Div tvornica vijaka Samobor 1884, Segestica
Sisak 1918, Željezara Sisak 1938, Ciglana IGM Sladojevci 1900, Đuro Đaković Slavonski
Brod 1921, Brodosplit Split 1931 TAL Šibenik, 1937 TEF Šibenik 1897, Brodotrogir Trogir
1922, Metalska industrija Varaždin 1939, Mundus Varaždin 1892, Varteks Varaždin 1918,
Jadranka Vela Luka 1892, Zdenka Veliki Zdenci 1897, Dilj Vinkovci 1922, OPECO
Virovitica 1896, TVIN Virovitica 1913, Pik Vrbove 1938, Borovo Vukovar 1931, Maraska
Zadar 1768, Badel Zagreb 1862, Cedevita Zagreb 1929, Chromos Zagreb 1920, Croatia
osiguranje Zagreb 1884, DTR Zagreb 1914, Dukat Zagreb 1912, Elka Zagreb 1927, Franck
Zagreb 1892, Gradske pekare Klara Zagreb 1909, Gredelj Zagreb 1894, HRT Zagreb 1926,
INA Zagreb 1883, Jadran Zagreb 1930, Jamnica Zagreb 1828, Katran Zagreb 1890, Končar
Zagreb 1921, Kraš Zagreb 1911, Lipa Mill Zagreb 1907, Medika Zagreb 1922, Pastor Zagreb
1930, Pliva Zagreb 1921, Prvomajska Zagreb 1936, TEŽ Zagreb 1929, TOZ-Penkala Zagreb
1937, Tvornica duhana Zagreb 1817, Zagrebačka banka Zagreb 1914, Zagrebačka pivovara
Zagreb 1892, Zvijezda ulje Zagreb 1916, Karbon Zaprešić 1932.

On the matter of the Slavs and their role in Medieval Scandinavian history:

“There were Slavs living on the shores of the Baltic since antiquity. In spite of the fact that it
was considerable, the role Slavs played on the Baltic is not very well known in the West. It is
interesting to see that the famous NorseVikings, who’ve plundered much of Western Europe,
have completely failed to duplicate their feats against the Slavs dwelling on the shores of the
Baltic. In fact, it is these very Slavs who often raided and pillaged the Norsemen instead.
These Slavic raids varied greatly in size and took place on Danish, Swedish, and even
Norwegian soil. Their devastating nature is well testified in the literary works of the notable
Danish chronicler Saxo Grammaticus. Danes even paid tribute frequently to these Slavic
tribes in order to avoid being raided. As a result, many words of Slavic origin have found
their way to the Scandinavian vocabulary, even those that have to do with maritime issues
like the words for a "boat" or a "ferry", and that fact is even recognized by Western scholars
(for more details on that subject see Krystyna Pieradzka, Walki Slowian na Baltyku w X-XII
Wieku, Warszawa, 1953).
The Slavs who dwelled on the shores of the Baltic have not only proved to be more than a
match for the Norsemen on the waters of the Baltic Sea, but they were also also known to
have ventured outside and into the North Sea. Such forays took place during the Slavic raids
against both Denmark and Norway. For example, on one occasion, during a campaign in
1043 AD, the Polabian Slavs first defeated a Danish fleet that was sent to capture Vineta,
then took advantage of the said victory by launching a naval expedition against Denmark.
This expedition sailed south of Falster and Lolland, then between Jutland and Fionia, it
fought a battle at Arhus, circumnavigated all of Jutland, thus ending up on its western or
North Sea side, and then crossed Schleswig by land (between the Danish strongholds of
Schleswig and Haithabu) fighting much of the way in the process, and safely returned by sea
to Slavia, after completing the land crossing of Schleswig. In the end, only during this one
particular expedition, the Polabian Slavs managed to lay waste to many of Denmark's coastal
areas. Speaking of the Slavs on the North Sea, one must also add that some Slavs actually
lived on the North Sea's shores, as partial settlement of Polabian Slavs is known to have taken
place in areas on the North Sea to the west of Hamburg. Another noteworthy event is the
participation of both Wendish and Polish mercenaries in a Danish expedition against England
– these Slavic mercenaries have not only crossed much of the North Sea, but even ended up
fighting in distant England (see Gerard Labuda "Slowianie na Baltyku", Szczecin-Tygodnik
Wybrzeza, Nr. 24). There is even some evidence of a more significant and permanent Slavic
settlement in Scandinavia, for example there are place names of Slavic origin in Denmark,
and in Sweden, there is at least one town that goes by the name of Wendel - and Wendel is an
old Swedish name for Slavs, implying that the town was named after the Slavs who must
have founded it. In fact, it was originally an old Germanic designation for Slavs, at least the
Western ones, and it was allegedly derived from the name of the alleged proto-Slavic people
known only as the “Venedi”. Wendel is also found as a surname in Scandinavia, and it is
sometimes even used as a first name in the English-speaking and Germanic-speaking
countries. For instance, Patrick Hankes and Flavia Hodges in their Oxford Dictionary of First
Names, Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, Oxford/New York, 1996 (c 1990), have to say
the following about the origin of that name: "(m.) German: from an old Germanic personal
name, in origin an ethnic byname for a Wend, a member of the Slavonic people living in the
area between the [Laba/Elbe and the [Odra/Oder..."(that is, the Obodriti tribe). The same
book also states that the given names of Wendelin, Wenda, and Wanda are of the same
derivation. At the time, when the Polans (Polani) originally formed Poland, it was just a
landlocked country. Nevertheless, the early Polish state. during the process of expanding its
boundaries, did not forget to include some seashores within its limits. The first part of
Pomerania to be incorporated into Poland was Eastern Pomerania, with its city and port of
Gdansk. Then, the central sector of Pomerania followed, with its chief city and port of
Kolobrzeg. Circa 965AD, the westernmost segment of Pomerania followed with its capital at
Szczecin. Some two years later, the Poles occupied the last remaining Slavic tribe of Polabia
and Pomerania, therefore Poland's (the tribal unity under the Polans tribe) conquest of
Pomerania was finalized. It was the most important step in forming the Polish nation under
the tribe of Polans, which managed to gradually assimilate the other Slavic tribes. Eventually,
as Poland consolidated its hold over the newly acquired littoral, the country established and
maintained diplomatic relations with both Denmark and Sweden. One of the results of these
diplomatic links was the marriage of Swietoslawa, a Polish princess of the Piast Dynasty and
daughter of the Polish Duke Mieszko I, with the Swedish King Eric the Victorious.
The marriage took place circa 990AD, (the precise date of this event has not been
established) (see G. Labuda, "Polska w Zlewisku Baltyku", Jantar, Year VI, pg. 34, Booklet
1; L. Koczy, Zwiazki Malzenskie Piastow ze Skandynawami, Poznan 1933, pg. 12; Jadwiga
Zylinska, Piastowny i Zony Piastow, Warszawa 1967, pgs. 23-36). It should also be
mentioned that this marriage was not a merely trivial historical event, considering the fact
that Swietoslawa was the daughter and sister of the rulers of Poland, and also the wife and
mother of the rulers of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and even England as well. Swietoslawa is
also considered to be the very first more notable Polish national to have made a trans-sea
voyage. She must have definitively not been the only Pole on board her ship, as there must
have been other Poles who were chosen to accompany the princess on her journey. In
Scandinavia, Swietoslawa became known as Sigrid (or sometimes also as Storrad), and under
that name she’s figured in the Norse sagas. Following Eric's death Swietoslawa married
another Scandinavian monarch: King Sven the Forkbearded of Denmark. After enduring a
mere few years of their marriage, he expelled Swietoslawa from Denmark, but after his death,
her sons made it possible for their mother to return to Denmark. One of them, Canute, would
become a ruler of three lands, as King of Denmark (1018-1035), of England, as Canute I
(1016-1035), and also the King of Norway (1028-1035). He was probably the most
outstanding ruler in Denmark's history, especially notable for his conquest of England, after
which he crowned himself as the king of England.
According to a legend, there were two Polish knights that went along with Swietoslawa to
Scandinavia, and later even joined the Norsemen on their journeys to Iceland, and possibly
Greenland and continental North America as well, and there are some sources, both
Scandinavian and Polish, which seem to indicate that it is more of a historical fact than but a
mere legend. These two Polish knights were named Wyzdarwoda (sometimes also known as
Wyzdraw) and Tyrker (sometimes also known as Tyrkir), the latter is very frequently
identified in Western sources as a "German", but the possibility of him being Polish, or at
least Slavic, will be properly addressed here. Both have eventually ended up at the royal
Danish court of King Sven the Forkbearded, where they came into contact with, according to
some claims, Eric the Red, or at least with some other Norse sailor who convinced the two
Poles to join him on a journey to a distant island in the far north. In his companionship they
sailed off to Iceland, and then possibly to Greenland as well, where they’ve allegeledly
settled for good.

The notable Polish author and maritime researcher and historian, Jerzy Pertek, has confirmed
the existence of these two semi-legendary figures as being mentioned in the old Norse sagas,
and he believes that it is possible that Wyzdarwoda, along with Tyrker, might have truly
settled on Greenland.That what is interesting about this entire ordeal is that it was neither
invented nor propagated by Poles, but rather by Americans. Apparently, the very first
mentioning of this in Polish literature was made, written and published by a Polish Roman
Catholic priest, a man who was residing in the USA, named Waclaw Kruszka on page 16 in
his Historya Polska w Ameryce, Vol. 1, Milwaukee, 1905 (a second edition of this thirtheen
volumes work was published in the United States in 1937). Kruszka might not have been the
very first to publish that claim, whether in English or Polish, or in any other language for that
matter, and the work that he cited as a source for this information is the American-written
Scribner's History of the U.S.A., Vol. 1, pg. 42. This book was not the work of any sensation-
seeking ethno-centric Pole, but rather of unbiased and objective American scholars and
researchers who somehow managed (probably using the same old Norse sources that were
used by Jerzy Pertek) to establish that a journey of at least two Poles, or at least two Western
Slavs, took place alongside the Norsemen all the way to the New World. It is crucial to find
out the origin of Tyrker and Wyzdarwoda, since they weren’t Norse combatants who had the
joined Vikings and went to Greenland. Both of them were knights, probably from the same
country, and they brough their soldiers along with them. If at least one of them was Slavic,
that would mean that there were Slavic soldiers that joined Norman expeditions to Greenland.
I will start with Tyrker, because we are not sure about his origin and his name doesnt sound
quite Slavic. Considering that great many Western sources assume that Tyrker was a German,
and there is nothing in the Norse sources to support that assumption, what evidence is there to
support the claim that Tyrker was a Slav, or perhaps even a Pole, or a Pomeranian, to be more
precise? In order to investigate that, we have to demistify the assumption that he was, in fact,
a German. To take a look at this issue, one must realize that there is no very solid basis to
assume the claim that he was a German, given the fact that his "German origin" is more
assumed than proven. Here is what the Tale of the Greenlanders (also known as the Saga of
the Greenlanders) has to say about Tyrker/ Tyrkir and who he really was:
"Tyrkir, a 'Southerner' in Leif's crew, wandered off on his own and found vines, from which
Leif named the country." The land to which the saga was referring to was of course Vinland.
But that is a very interesting passage in another way, for as the reader can see, Tyrkir is not
called a German but rather a Southerner, and this particular assessment certainly doesn’t rule
out his possible Slavic origin. If he was Germanic, then he wouldn’t be called a southerner
(i.e, foreigner). All the Western Slavs, whom the Poles, Pomeranians, and Polabians are all
part of, just happen to live directly to the south of Scandinavians, so there should be nothing
surprising for the Norsemen to refer to Western Slavs as "Southerners”. There is another
fragment of the Tale of the Greenlanders which indirectly suggests Tyrker's Slavic origin.
Tyrker became "immortalized" as the one who allegedely discovered "grapes" in the land that
the Norsemen would go on to call as Vinland. Whether he found genuine grapes, or rather
some wild berries that were much more suitable for growing in a cooler climate (such as
Scandinavia or Poland) is hotly disputed by many scholars, although, so far, all the evidence
points out to that the Vinland "grapes" were not real grapes at all. For instance, Merrit L.
Fernald, a professor of botany at the Harvard University, puts forward a very plausible
explanation to the whole mystery of the "Vinland grapes" in 1910 in a paper published in the
magazine called Rhodora. He pointed out that vinber, the word in the sagas which is usually
translated as "grapes", really meant "wineberry", which might be the wild red currant, the
goose-berry, or the mountain cranberry (quite common in Poland). Also, according to Dr.
Helge Ingstad, the Norsemen might have intentionally spread a false rumour about grapes
being present on Vinland, or at least they may have misrepresented some wild berries as
"grapes", as a way to entice more settlers to go there. And in this case, one must add that
among Norsemen, wine was greatly valued, especially the one made from grapes, and to
them it was a symbol of great wealth and affluence. In this case, and all the archeological
evidence gathered on the Norse settlement in the continental North America, supports this
stance, that Tyrker did not have had to originate in the Rhineland, as many supporters of his
alleged "German" origin claim, but he could very well have come from a more northern and
colder area like Poland, Pomerania, or Slavia in general. The Tale of the Greenlanders speaks
that he (Tyrker) returned very jubilant and enthusiastic to the bewildered Normans, and in
such state, began to communicate with them in his own native tongue which none of the
Norsemen could understand. Therefore, and apparently, Tyrker's native tongue was not a
Germanic one. That is very interesting because the Norse language and German are
universally recognized as being related, and in fact, back in the day, they must have been
mutually or partially intelligible (and likely, they still are mutually intelligible to a certain
degree, even today). If so, then why did the Normans fail to understand him? Apparently
Tyrker's native language was not Germanic in origin, and as a result, no Norseman could
understand what Tyrker was saying in his own native tongue. One must remember that Slavic
and Germanic languages were not mutually understandable (nor are they today), therefore,
was it a Slavic language that Tyrker was speaking to the bewildered Normans? Considering
the account as it is related in the Tale of the Greenlanders, that is an entirely likely scenario.
Tyrker was usually mentioned with his friend Wyzdarwoda, so we can safely assume that
they were of the same nationality. I can’t see Wyzdarwoda not being Slavic (his name is a
very obvious giveaway). At last, we have to face the question of Tyrker's name, since as
sceptics might point out, it does not sound Slavic (there is no such problem with
Wyzdarwoda or Wyzdraw since both of these two names, or rather variations of the same
name, sound unquestionably Slavic). Yes, it does not really sound Slavic, but that does not
mean that it was Tyrker's original name, since the translation of name was not an uncommon
thing among schoolars. It is entirely likely that Tyrker was in fact originally known by the
Slavic name of Tyrko or Tvrtko, but due to linguistic barriers, his name was subsequently
"Normanized" to Tyrker. Having all that in mind, it is certain that Tyrker or what ever his
real name was, was not German. Another theory claims that he was Hungarian, but that is
highly unlikely. Furthermore, it is even acknowledged in Western sources that, according to
the Icelandic sagas, some Norse-age settlers on Iceland did in fact claim to have been
descended from royal lineages of some Slavic countries - that is by no means an outlandish
claim, considering the fact that there were frequent marriages between the various princely
Polabian families, the dukal family of Pomerania, and even the ruling Piast Dynasty of
Poland, with the ruling houses of the Scandinavian countries.There is no mentioning of any
Hungarian or worse, “Turkish knights” or families joining Normans, therefore, since Tyrker
was a knight, he ought to have either noble, or royal ancestry, which would mean that Tyrker
was part of some West Slavic noble or royal house.
On the naval superiority of the Pomeranians:

“879 years ago, the fleet of the Pomeranian Prince Racibor I - tributary of the Polish King
Bolesław Wrymouth, attacked and defeated the Scandinavians on their own soil. After
passing 300 miles and two Danish straits, a West Slavic fleet, composed of 650 warships, and
as sources claim, some 29000 warriors, attacked, conquered and plundered the allegedly
unconquerable stronghold, one of the most important ports and the religious Christian center
of Scandinavia - Konungahela. Konungahela (Konghelle, Kungölv nowadays, in southern
Sweden), laying on the borderland of Norway and Sweden, over the Götafeld river, in XII
century was formally ruled over by the Danish King Eric II. It was one of the most important
regional trade centers, both on sea and land. The aforementioned city was one of the richest
ports in northern Europe, and had a special religious economic and political role in the history
of Scandinavia. By sea, the city was protected by high fjords, and by land, by a great
stronghold. It was considered impregnable. Historians are simply not sure what was the
reason behind this raid, commanded personally by Prince Racibor I of the Gryffin dynasty,
and brother of the Pomeranian king/duke Wracisław I. It is possible that the reason for this
raid, besides the lust for gold and slaves, was strictly political reason, a need to put an end to
the Danish-German conspiracy which was aimed against the West Slavic pirate enterprises,
or simply to weaken Denmark, military-wise and economically. Danes were the chief enemy
of the Rani and Pomeranian tribes, its also likely that Bolesław Wrymouth was also involved
in this ordeal. Snorri Sturluson’ saga claims that the Pomeranian fleet was 780 warships
strong. In fact, one ship was able to take 44 warriors and 2 horses aboard. It was the greatest
known sea raid undertaken by West Slavic tribes. We have to remember that "historians"
have very often tampered with the numbers of opposing sides, as a way to justify defeats, or
to make victories more triumphant than they really were. One way or another, the great
Pomeranian fleet left Kołobrzeg, and destroyed the Danish fleet almost entirely, and
plundered a number of ports on their way to Konungahela. The city was 10 kilometers inland,
with two paths of the same river leading towards it. Racibor, who was experienced in raiding
the Scandinavians, split his army in two groups, and directed them towards the stronghold. In
1136, both of these armies have seen the goal of their expedition. At the same time, someone
called Einar, the son of the priest Andrew, disturbed the holy mass and raised the alarm about
the incoming warships that were spotted. In response, the civilians and the garrison alike
rushed to the ramparts to defend their city’s walls. One part of the Pomeranian fleet had no
problem with landing, and its cavalry had managed to surround the walls rather quickly. The
second part of fleet was under constant fire from enemy arrows and siege equipment, and
they had to burn tradeships that were blocking their way towards the shore. Snorri claims that
only during that part of attack, the Wends have lost 170 men. Either way, that was the
moment when the first slaves were captured, the rest of the defenders have fled towards the
city.
After a short rest, the Slavs proceeded to enter the city, killing, ravaging, plundering and
burning what was left, and even enslaving the surviving population. Those who didn’t die at
the port, or the outer perimeters of the city, found refuge within the thick walls of its
stronghold, the last part of the city that was left standing. For a time, Racibor was trying to
convince the Scandinavians to surrender, promising safe passage with weapons, clothing and
valuables untouched, but the defenders have refused to believe him. The battle continued,
besieged, and witnessing the overwhelming power of the Pomeranians, and their
determination to completely erase this place from the map, the defenders have tried to call for
support from further inland. They managed to send message to Skurbarga where a great feast
was taking place. Many warriors were encouraged by the berserker, and went south to
Konungahela. Here, Snorri allowed his imagination to run amock, praising the “bravery” of
his countrymen. He also mentions a great sacrifice to kill single a Pomeranian sharpshooter,
who was allegedly heavily defended by group of sworn warriors. But alas, no relief force
could change the outcome of this situation, for Konungahela was ment to fall under the
onslaught of the Pomeranian host. When the defenders ran out of arrows, spears, supplies and
stones, they were on the path of no return. Because they refused to surrender when they were
offered to, Racibor showed no mercy. Everyone who wasn’t worthy of being enslaved was
killed, everything that had no value was burned to ashes and Konungahela never recovered to
its former glory. Racibor, triumphant and wealthy, returned to his lands leaving nothing but
ashes and death in his wake. He was one of those famous warlords of royal blood in the
annals of the Western Slavic tribes. He also fought alongside Prince Niklot during the
Wendish Crusade. Racibor had a hobby, raiding his closest Scandinavian neighbours, and
historians claim that the Pomeranians and Ranians have exterminated 1/3 of whole Danish
population during all of their recorded raids and battles. A few years later, in 1147, he sat on
the throne of Pomerania. He never stopped organizing and leading raids into Scandinavia.
After he "went to Scandinavia", Pomerania was split between two of his sons, Kazimierz I
(Casimir I) and Bogusław I.”

On the Universal Order of Natural law:

“This is not an assessment of defeats on both sides, but of the German failure to live up to
their own belief of being the superior race, the Russians have defeated them, and by adhering
to the rule of Natural law, they've earned the right to deem themselves as superior, in contrast
to the defeated Germans.It is impossible to deny this, both sides were exposed to the same
sub-zero environment, low amounts of supplies, hypothermia, stress, degradation of mental
health, physical deterioration and disastrous military treatment, yet the Russians seem have to
endured it better than the Germans and have defeated their enemy, this proves their greater
racial quality and biological superiority. It is also important to note that by all accounts, the
Germans were supposed to win. They've caught the Soviets off guard by betraying the Non-
Aggression Pact, and for a time, they've also fought against a leaderless army. Prior to World
War II, Stalin had executed nearly 50000 Russian officers, including seven out of twelve
marshals, and they've additionally had 1.2 million allied soldiers at their disposal during
Operation Barbarossa, even outnumbering the Russians at that point. And yet, they’ve lost.
Those who allegedly adhere to the Universal Order of Natural Law must respect the historical
fact that the Russians had defeated the Germans, and by doing so, have proven to be their
superiors.”

On the matter of cultural and material losses of Poland:

“The total cost of German theft and destruction of Polish art alone is estimated at 20 billion
dollars, or an estimated 43% of Polish cultural heritage, over 516,000 individual art pieces
were looted, including 2,800 paintings by European painters, 11,000 paintings by Polish
painters, 1,400 sculptures, 75,000 manuscripts, 25,000 maps; 90,000 books, including over
20,000 printed before 1800, and hundreds of thousands of other items of artistic and historical
value. Germany still has much Polish material looted during World War II. For decades there
have been mostly futile negotiations between Poland and Germany concerning the return of
the looted property. Railway lost – 84%, power – 65%, post and telecommunications 62%,
education 60%, mining – 42%.
Of the 30 thousand industrial plants only 10 thousand plants survived, however, from that
surviving, more than half of the buildings were destroyed. More than 30 percent of forests
were destroyed. The Germans took more than 200 million tons of coal, one million tons of
potassium, 500 thousand. tons of iron ore, 100 thousand. tons of phosphate rock. The total
economic losses amounted to 259 billion zlotys pre-war, prewar or 49 billion dollars. Taking
into account the fact that the then gold and the dollar were based on the gold standard, when
converted at today's exchange rate, Germany is blamed for the destruction of the Polish
economy in around of 590 billion dollars. Then there are the losses incurred by individual
citizens. In 1990 prof. Alfons Klafkowski, the late international law expert, has calculated
that in this respect the victims and their heirs (war losses were suffered by more than 13
million people) would be 285 billion dollars in compensation. There are incalculable losses of
life and finally as a result from that there was the collapse of civilization of Poland which was
attached to the Soviet bloc, which is also a result of the war caused by the Germans. Poland
had also lost: 39% physicians, 33% teachers in vocational schools, secondary and primary,
30% scientists and university professors, 28% priests, 26% lawyers. According to various
surveys, Germany should have to pay from $ 100 billion to 300 billion dollars only in
compensation for lost material assets.”

On the matter of indigenous amnesia:

“So horrendous was Yugoslavia that it has raised the literacy rate from an overall 40% to
97% in less than half a century, deployed rapid modernization that had supervised a type and
intensity of industrialization and material development never to be seen before in
Southeastern Europe, nearly doubled the population and transformed all of it’s devastated
member-states into one of the most powerful states of its time? Never mind the fact that it
was a competing exporter and pioneer in a myriad of fields of technology, and took steps to
safeguard its market with high import tolls. Yugoslavia had issues, like every country that
was systematically destroyed in both of the World wars and wasn't included in the Marshall
Plan and London Conference debt write offs, but to pretend as if it were a blight upon
humanity is revisionism personified”.

On the sighting of Slavs in Asia Minor:

The history of Slavs in Asia Minor is known only thanks to the literary work of muslim
historians. There were several major routes of the trade of Slavs to the Muslim world:
through Central Asia (Mongols, Tatars, Khazars, etc.), through the Mediterranean
(Byzantium) and through Central and Western Europe to Al-Andalus. The Volga trade route
and other European routes, according to Ibrahim ibn Jakub, Slavs were enslaved by fellow
Slavs, and then sold by the Radanite Jewish merchants. Theophanes mentions that the
Umayyad caliph Muawiyah I settled a whole army of 5,000 Slavic mercenaries to Syria in the
660s and how they’ve originally arrived from Asia Minor.”
The most known Slavic settlement in the Islamic world, or in Asia minor, was the city of
Gordoservon (Serbian: Srbograd, Grad Srba, Гордосервон, Greek: Γορδόσερβα), its name
has derived from the Serbs who were resettled in Asia Minor (in ca 649 or 667) by the
Byzantine Emperor Constans II (641–668), who came from the areas "around the river
Vardar"(modern Macedonia). Isidor, the Bishop of Gordoservon is mentioned in 680/681,
and the fact that this town was an episcopal seat gives ground to the thesis that it had a large
Serbian population. Around the year 1200, this city is mentioned as 'Servochoria' (the Serbian
habitation). Constantine III had settled captured Slavs in Asia Minor, and 5,000 of these
joined the hosts of Abdulreman ibn Khalid in 664-665. Justinian II (685-695) has also settled
Slavs in Asia Minor, and as many as 30,000 Slavs from Thrace, in an attempt to boost the
armed hosts of the eastern part of his empire. Most of them however, with their leader
Neboulos, deserted to the Arabs at the Battle of Sebastopolis in 692. Arabs later used Slavs as
elite guards and militia. In the Acts of the Council of Trullo in 691/692, for the first time in
recorded history, a bishop is mentioned τῶν Γορδοσέρβων (of Gordoserba), in the province
of Bythinia, Asia Minor. The appearance of the episcopal seat called Gordoserba in Asia
Minor, at the end of the 7th century, has been often explained as a consequence of settlement
of some group of the Serbs from the Balkans to Asia Minor, during some of the many
resettlements of peoples conducted by the Byzantine emperors throughout the 7th century.
The paper points to the fact that the bishop τῶν Γορδοσέρβων was mentioned for the first
time in the Acts of the Council of Trullo in 691/692, and that there was no mention of him in
the Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical council in Constantinople in 680/681. Thus, it might be
concluded that the resettlement of the Serbs from the Balkans to Asia Minor occurred
between the two councils. As it is well known, emperor Justinian II conquered many tribes of
the Slavs in the vicinity of Thessalonica in 688/689 and then transferred them to Asia Minor,
to the Opsician Theme, which is the territory of the Province of Bythinia. It could also be
possible that the Serbs whose bishop was present at the Council of Trullo in 691/692 were
part of that resettlement of the Slavs and that they’ve originated in the region of Thessalonica,
where, according to Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, Serbs did live in the 7th century.”

On the matter of the Slavic conquest and colonization of Southeastern Europe:

“Most people are of the belief that Slavs have slowly migrated across the continent and in the
process of doing so, were colonizing foreign lands. However, Peter Heather in his "Empires
and Barbarians" gives numerous examples which prove the contrary - he addresses and show
the rapid speed of Slavic expansions. In 543, the Langobard duke Hildigis has attacked the
Eastern Roman hosts with 6000 warriors, most of whom were Sclavenes (ancestors of
southern Slavs). According to Peter Heather, he had probably recruited those mercenaries
from Moravia (archaeology confirms the presence of Slavs in Moravia and in parts of north-
western Bohemia - archaeological site at Březno, dated ca. 550 AD). It must be noted that
until around 568 (the first Avar invasion), Pannonia was occupied by Langobards and
Gepids. Only half a century later - in 593 and 595 - Slavs were already invading Bavaria on
one side, and Thracia on the other. This means that in around 50 years, they’ve advanced 250
kilometers westwards and about 1400 kilometers southwards. The portrayal of Slavs as
passive farmers is the embodiment of revisionism. Their primary god was the god of war –
Svetovid or Perun. As for the Balkans, the Slavic advance was also rapid and seemingly
unstoppable, but they’ve initially only plundered the wealthy territories of Southeastern
Europe, and did not settle until later. John of Amida also known as John of Ephesus records
that in 581 "…an accursed people, called Slavonians, overran the whole of Greece…and
captured the cities, and took numerous forts, and devastated and burned, and reduced the
people to slavery, and made themselves masters of the whole country, and settled in it mainly
by force, and dwelt in it as though it had been their own. And even to this day [584 AD], they
still encamp and dwell there, and dwell in peace in the Roman territories, free from anxiety
and fear.

Another source, the so-called Chronicle of Monembasia, states that in the year 587—588,
“Slavonians captured all of Thessaly and all of Greece, Old Epirus, Attica and Euboea.
Indeed, they attacked the Peloponnese and took it by war, and after expelling and destroying
the native Hellenic peoples, they dwelt there. Those who were able to escape their murderous
hands were scattered here and there. Thus, the citizens of Patras moved to the district of
Reggio in Calabria, the Argives to the island called Orobe, the Corinthians to the island of
Aegina. Only the eastern part of the Peloponnese, from Corinth to Cape Maleas, was
untouched by the Slavonians because of the rough and inaccessible nature of the country.”
And Procopius of Caesarea reported the following: " In Illyria and Thracia, from the Ionian
Gulf to Byzantine surrounding cities, where Hellas and Chersonese regions are situated, the
Sclavenes and the Antes, invading practically every year since Justinian administering the
Roman Empire, were inflicting irreversible damage to their inhabitants. In each invasion I
estimate 200,000 Romans were either taken prisoner or killed "
And in his Book VII, XIII, Procopius of Caesarea describes the events of the year 545 AD:
"For a great throng of the barbarians, the Sclaveni, had, as it happened, recently crossed the
Ister [Danube], plundering the adjoining country and enslaved a very great number of
Romans."
"About the fourth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius Constantine, some hundred thousand
Slavs broke into Thrace, and pillaged that and many other regions. As Greece was being laid
waste by the Slavs, with trouble liable to flare up anywhere, and as Tiberius had at his
disposal by no means sufficient forces, he sent a delegation to the Khagan of the Avars." And
this should also be mentioned (from Procopius, again): "Slavs who had defeated Asbadus,
later plundered in turn everything up to the sea coast, and captured in an assault the coastal
city of Toperus. And they slaughtered 25,000 men, plundered everything, and enslaved all the
children and all the women."
The Slavic approach to enslaving their enemies is described by Procopius: "Belisarius was
eager to capture alive one of the men of note among the enemy, in order that he might learn
what the reason might be why the barbarians were holding out in their desperate situation.
And Valerian promised readily to perform such a service for him. For there were some men
in his command, he said, from the nation of the Sclaveni, who are accustomed to conceal
themselves behind a small rock or any bush which may happen to be near and pounce upon
an enemy. In fact, they are constantly practising this in their native haunts along the river
Ister, both on the Romans and on the [other] barbarians as well."
In "Strategikon of Maurice" there is a hint as to what could have facilitated Slavic
demography: "Slavs do not keep prisoners in perpetual slavery like other peoples, but they
demarcate them for a limited period of time, after which they give them a choice: they can
return home after purchasing their freedom, or stay among them as free people and friends."
Thus, it can be concluded that Slavic tribes consisted not only of original Slavs but also of
liberated slaves, who belonged originally to other peoples, but were permitted to be part of a
Slavic tribe. The first Slavic settlements in the Balkans south of the Danube were established
already in mid-6th century. Slavs were raiding and plundering Roman lands from their
territories north of the Danube River, located in what is now southern Romania since around
the 490’s, but they started to settle south of the Danube (in Balkans "proper") around the mid
6th century. The first settlements from ca. 545 - 550 were established in eastern Bosnia,
Lower and Upper Moesia, and Little Scythia - including the regions of Ulmetum and Adina.
Around the same time (ca. 550), the first Slavic invaders probably reached what is now
Slovenia (they could be the same tribe that had besieged Durazzo in 547).
The second wave of Slavs came to Slovenia some time after 568 (this time from the north,
most probably from Moravia). According to John of Ephesus and Menander Protector,
another major wave of Slavs (Menander wrote that their strength was 100,000, but he didn't
specify whether that included only warriors or all people) broke into Thrace and Thessaly as
far as the Great Walls of Constantinople in the period of 577 - 580, and settled in vast areas.
Sources say that those Slavs were led by a war chief named Ardagast or Radogost
(Ардагаст), and a "king" named Musokios. In 580, Slavs invaded Greece and sacked the city
of Athens, for which there is archaeological evidence (other sources indicate that Slavs
started to settle in Attica, and only one generation later in the Peloponnesus, around 610 – but
as I wrote before, it is possible that initially, they’ve only raided and plundered, and started to
settle the lands in question a bit later than that).
In 583, the Slavs have reached the southern part of the Peloponnesus. The Greek population
has fled to Laconia, establishing a refugium in Monemvasia. In 599, Pope Gregory I, in a
letter to the Exarch of Italy, wrote that the Slavs had already seized most of Istria, and were
raiding the Italian Peninsula. After these invasions by the Slavs, in 584 AC, the Byzantine
Emperor Maurice sent emissaries to the Khagan of the Avars - Bayan I, asking him for help
against the Slavs. The Avars initially worked as Byzantine allies against the Slavs. In 584,
Ardagast with his Slavs, raided Thrace, penetrating as far as the Long Walls, and has even
planning to besiege Constantinople, but was repulsed by the combined Byzantine-Avar
forces, and later lost two more battles against the Byzantine and Avar forces led by a certain
Comentiolus (the battle of Erginia River and the battle of Ansinon, near Hadrianopole).
Comentiolus also expelled the Slavic settlers out of the region of Atica.
In 585, the Byzantines-Avars decided to attack the original South Slavic lands across the
Danube – the forces under command of Priscus and Gentzon crossed the river at Dorostolon
(present-day Silistra) and surprised the Slavs in their native territory, as most of their hosts
were campaigning in the Byzantine part of the Balkans for a quite long time. They attacked at
midnight, and defeated the Slavs, and in the chaos, Ardagast was almost captured. Although,
he did manage to evade the attackers. But as a response to the resurging power of the
Byzantines, the Avars have abandoned their Byzantine allies and have started to cooperate
with the Slavs, but only after they’ve subjugated some of the lesser Slav tribes, most notably
the southern branch of the Dudlebes, and having entered into alliances with the other Slavic
tribes. The conquest and colonization of most of SE Europe at the hands of the Slavs was
originally a Slav-only endeavor, which was finalized in the aftermath of the forging of the
Slav-Avar alliance, which was then countered by a Slav-Greek alliance between Emperor
Heraclius and the Croats and the Serbs, who’ve exterminated all Avars south of the river
Danube in return for settling the lands that would soon become their new homelands.
"(...) In third year after the death of Emperor Justin, during the reign of Tiberius, the damned
nation of the Slavs has risen, and marching through entire Hellas, through lands of Thessaly
and Thrace, captured many cities and strongholds, plundered, burned and robbed, seized the
land and settled there with full ease, without fear, like in their own land. (...) they were
plundering the country, burning it and robbing, as far as the Great Walls [of Constantinople],
and this is how they captured many thousands of cattle, as well as many other kinds of booty.
(...) Until today, that is until year 584, they still continue to live in peace in lands of the
Rhomaioi, without fear and concern, plundering, murdering and burning, getting rich and
hijacking gold and silver, capturing horses and plenty of weapons, and they have learned to
fight better than the Rhomaioi. (...)"

On Blaskowitz’s takes on the brutalous mistreatment of civilians by the German SS:

“As a traditional soldier and Commander in Chief in Occupied Poland, Blaskowitz kept a
firm control on the men under his command in their dealings with civilians and was opposed
to Army participation in war crimes by the SS and Einsatzgruppen. Between November 1939
and February 1940, he wrote several memoranda to higher military officials, in which he
detailed SS atrocities in Poland, their negative effects on Wehrmacht soldiers and the insolent
attitude of the SS toward the army. However, his protests failed to produce results, and
merely earned him the enmity of Hitler, Hans Frank, Reinhard Heydrich and Heinrich
Himmler, while Chief of Staff Alfred Jodl dismissed them as naive and "uncalled for".”

On the assessment of the German-led propaganda against Poland in 1939, prior to the
invasion:

“Edwin Erich Dwinger, author of the Nazi book about "Bromberger Blutsonntag", who, in his
book "Zwölf Gespräche" published in 1966, has condemned his own propaganda book about
"Bromberger Blutsonntag". He wrote: "Counterintelligence of SS before the war outbreak has
smuggled their people to Poland, in order to carry sabotage in civilian clothes. For causing
explosions, for shooting to marching soldiers, for burning military depots, were then accused
Volksdeutche... Polish anger has turned against them, this is one of the secrets of the
"Bromberger Blutsonntag". Later Dwinger has repeated that to his son, who demanded the
whole truth about his father's participation in Nazi propaganda (Susanne Feigl, Elisabeth
Pable - Vater Unser, Reflexionen von Tochtern und Sohnen- Wien 1988).
"This murder was reaction on shooting at marching Polish soldiers, and sabotage acts... He
(his father) was convinced, that Goebbels calling him knew very well, that these events were
inscenised by Main Security Reich Office" from: N. Dwinger, Leben zwischen Lenzen und
Pershings (in) S. Feigl, E. Pable Vater unser. Reflexionen von Tochtern und Sohnen, Wien,
page 210.”

On the matter of the number of Germans killed in Poland in 1939:

“The "Posener Zentralstelle fuer die Graber ermordeter Volksdeutscher" (Center of Murdered
Ethnic-Germans Burial) has noted about 5500 ethnic-German Poles fallen and missing in
September 1939 in whole Poland, for all reasons (including 1047 soldiers of Polish Army of
German origin who had died during the fights, and 880 German "partisans", both parties
being saboteurs. German Sonderbericht Bromberg (Special Court Bydgoszcz/Bromberg)
documents, preserved in Bydgoszcz State Archive, from trials of Polish officers accused and
judged for numerous executions of Germans in early September 1939. Very interesting
materials, showing that German court in 1939-42 period accepted that there was real German
diversion and 5th column active in Bydgoszcz/Bromberg and accepted executions of German
saboteurs (including civilians and the Polish soldiers of German origin) as lawful actions of
Polish military forces. Wieslaw Jakubowski, commander of 6th company 59 Infantry Regt,
judged for ordering shooting at German civilians, throwing grenades to German houses and
execution of ethnic German Otto Rodewald. Jakubowski was accused by one of the
Volksedeutche serving in his unit, Erwin Heilmann, who stated that the Polish unit was shot
from gardens and houses and Jakubowski ordered to return fire. Two Polish soldiers have
died and several were wounded. Heilmann also stated, that he had seen that Polish soldier has
murdered German woman, and that the Polish soldiers were throwing grenades to the German
houses, but asked by court how he determined that the women and the houses were German,
he withdrew his testimony, and accused Jakubowski for executing German civilian, Otto
Rodewald. Court found Jakubowski unguilty, stating that execution of Rodewald was
justified.
Document number: Sg. 6 Sd. Js. 781/41.
Lt. Tadeusz Gorecki, 61 Inf. Rgt. judged for execution of two German civilians. Court found
Gorecki not guilty, stating that execution was justified.
Document number: Sg.6 Sd.KLS.93/41.
Major Jan Gawronski, commander of Bydgoszcz Batalion of National Defence judged for
execution of 6 ethnic Germans 5th September. Court found Gawronski not guilty, stating that
execution was justified.
Document number: Sg. 6 Sd.KLS.31/41.
Res. Lt. Jozef Tomaszewski, 59 Inf. Rgt., judged for execution of several ethnic Germans,
Court found Tomaszewski not guilty, stating that execution was justified.
Document number: Sg.5 Sd.KLS.51/54.
Lt Boleslaw Soltys from 59 Inf. Rgt. judged for execution of four German civilians. Court
found Tomaszewski not guilty, stating that execution was justified.
Document number: Gerichtsgefangnis Bromberg, t XV, K. 362. t. XXVI, K. 758.
Res. Lt Stanislaw Kuczkowski from 62 Inf. Rgt., in civil life judge of Polish court, accused
and judged for execution of several German civilians, captured with arms. Kuczkowski was
sentenced to death, but after announcing the sentence to the court a German came, who has
been a witness of the event, and who had been arrested by Kuczkowski with that group of
armed Germans, and then released, as no arms were found with him. After that testimony
Kuczkowski was found not guilty. Sg. 4 Sd. KLS. 10/41.”
On the unlikeliness of the belief that the Lend-Lease had won the Eastern Front:

“But it’s unlikely the aid turned the war entirely in the Soviet Union’s favor, as the German
military was overstretched even during the 1941 invasion. That vulnerability was exposed
terribly during the Red Army’s 1941–1942 Moscow counter-offensive — and it’s unlikely
Germany would have won the war even if it had captured Moscow. And that was when Lend-
Lease was just beginning. But Lend-Lease certainly helped in many ways. “If the Western
Allies had not provided equipment and invaded northwest Europe [our emphasis], Stalin and
his commanders might have taken twelve to eighteen months longer to finish off the
Wehrmacht,” Glantz noted. The result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet
soldiers would have waded at France’s Atlantic beaches rather than meeting the Allies at the
Elbe.”

On the belief that Denazificiation had stripped the German society of its former identity:

“Very soon after the program started, due to the emergence of the Cold War, the western
powers and the United States in particular began to lose interest in the program, and it was
carried out in an increasingly lenient and lukewarm way until being officially abolished in
1951. The American government soon came to view the program as ineffective and
counterproductive. Additionally, the program was hugely unpopular in Germany and was
opposed by the new West German government.”

On the Pre-Christian Slavic letters that were incorporated in the Cyrillic and Glagolitic
alphabets: “Ⰱ, Ⰶ, Ⰷ, Ⰻ, Ⰼ, Ⱀ, Ⱁ, Ⱄ, Ⱈ, Ⱍ, Ⱓ”

A German’s point of view on the belief that Germany is attempting to subdue Europe through
the EU:

“Since no one wants an overly strong European military, Germany, through diplomacy (alias
EU), has to secure as many dependable allies as it can. How can you secure and make an ally
dependendent on you? By making sure that you have the same enemy, making them
economically dependent on you or making sure that it is politically impossible for them to act
against you. What you see as Germany trying to establish hegemony in Europe is actually
Germany securing its borders. ”
On the matter of the fate of Niklot’s family and his people:

“Przybysław was the son of Niklot and brother of Warcisław and Przesław. Around the year
1145, he married Wojsława – a woman from the Pomeranian dynasty of the Griffins. Their
son, Borzywoj-Heinrich married Matilda, daughter of Heinrich the Lion. Przybysław was
born a pagan, but together with his Warcisław, was baptised some time before 1163. He is
considered to be the first ruler of Mecklemburg (germanised from Weligrad) as he rapidly
transformed the crumbling and war-torn country of his father into another March. He forced
the feudal system on the Slavic people who, prior to that, have practiced their tribal form of
democracy, and were violently coerced into subjecting themselves to Christianization and
Germanisation, which was, in fact, the real purpose behind their Christianisation. After the
valiant death of their father at the Battle of Orle, Warcisław and Przybysław have burned the
strongholds they couldn’t hold, just like like their father Niklot did with so many other
fortresses in the past. However, they’ve continued guerilla warfare against the Germans and
Danes for months on end. Because the occupation of their lands was conducted with extreme
prejudice, and because the brothers understood they cannot achieve anything more, the
brothers have decided to surrender to Heinrich and become his tributaries. As a result,
they’ve received territories on the borders with Pomerania and maybe, as some kind of
meaningful gesture, the Orle stronghold. In the years 1162-1163, they waged an attack on the
Saxons and reconquerred most of former Weligrad, but sadly that was not to last. As fate
would dictate, Warcisław, who was hiding in Orle, wasn’t relieved in time by his brother,
who came too late to relieve him, just like the Pomeranian fleet was simply too late to relieve
Niklot when he rode to his death. As a result, Warcisław was taken into captivity, and
Heinrich gave those lands to his ally Lubomir – the brother of Niklot. Przybysław still
managed to maintain a hold over some territories, at least over those that’ve provided him
with the bulk of his economical and military support. Later on, he realized that he must
intimidate his opponents with perpetual aggression, in order to save his younger brother. In
1164, he conquered and burned down the now totally germanised Mechlin and he threw out
the German settlers from Iłowo and Mechlin. Further on, he overtook the main stronghold of
the Morzyci tribe – Malechów. Slavic strongholds were known for being impossible to
besiege without the appropriate mechanical support, or treason. Heinrich attacked the
Malechów stronghold, and, frustrated by his failure to penetrate the fortresses’ walls, ordered
that Warcisław be hanged in front of his own brother. He also sent to Denmark for help and,
together with Waldemar I, have attacked another stronghold – Dymin. Przybysław followed
them in pursuit, to defend Dymin, and in doing so, he wasn’t alone. Two brothers, the princes
of Pomerania, Bogusław I and Kazimierz (Casimir) I, retaliated by striking at their most
hated enemies – the Danes, and joined their forces with Przybysław. The Slavic host has lost
Dymin, but they’ve managed to kill Adolf II, the nemesis and bane of Warcisław and
Przybysław’ father. Later on, the Danish fleet blocked the Odra River entrance, and in
response, the Pomeranians focused on securing their borders and in their country, Przybysław
finally found refuge. According to the chronicle who is criticised by modern historians for his
unreliable claims, Saxo Grammaticus, Heinrich separated those territories between Lubomir,
the Danes, the youngest of the sons of Niklot, Przesław, and even prince Ciesław of the
Pomeranian Ruyani tribe, who was supposed to be a Danish tributary. This doesn’t make
sense, because he became a tributary in 1168, almost five years later. In fact, the territories
Grammaticus mentions were, at the time, ruled over by the continental part of the Ruyani
tribe. There are a few reasons for this whole controversy, and why the situation is described
differently by different historians. There are actual reasons to assume that since the early XII
century (aprox.1120), whole eastern regions of Weligrad were controlled by the Pomeranians.
That would explain a lot, such as the military aid the Pomeranians were perpetually giving to
the Obodrites throughout the century, and how a prince in exile, Przybysław, was able to
come back to Dymin after three years, and launch a renewed attack on the Saxons. He got as
far as Raciborz and Swarzyn, practically retaking the whole of the original Obodritic
territories, plus the tribes of Warnowie, Chyżanie, Morzycy and Czrezpienianie. This
impressive, and rather surprising victory could not be possible without a strong support of the
Pomeranian army. He practically founded Weligrad again, or better yet, created a new one,
with a capital in Roztok. And then what? He made peace and alliances with Heinrich the
Lion, and as a result success seemed to be absolute. The problem was that the country in
question was aboslutely devastated by these notorious wars in such a short timespan. People
were dying of hunger or selling themselves to slavery just to survive, while those who could,
were escaping to neighbouring countries, mostly to Denmark and Pomerania, where those
homeless wanderers were taken into slavery and sold as such to Czechia, Poland and Saxony.
Huge parts of Weligrad became empty and desolate. Przybysław had no nation to rule, so he
allowed the Saxons to move in. The country became rapidly Christianized and Germanised as
a result, the last remaining independent groups of the Obodrites who kept their identity were
actually... pirates – the Chąśnicy, referred to by the Scandinavians as the Vinda Frelsi, the
free Slavs. They were a serious regional military power, and had successfully plundered
Denmark till the end of XII century. Their activity, on a much greater scale, began, in fact, at
the very moment of the germanisation of Weligrad. In 1168, Vinda Frelsi (probably a
combination of Obodrites and Pomeranians), made a massive and well coordinated attack on
Denmark. The number of slaves they got from it was rather large for those times. After just
one raid, 700 Danes were sold at the slave market in Mechlin only (which, at the time was
probably rebuilt). Because Przybysław has helped the Danes in their attack on Ruyana Island,
we know for a fact that he was fighting against Slavic pirates, so the Obodritic ones had to be
independent. He helped destroy Arkona, the main sanctuary of the Pomeranians, which was
also a place where a large number of slaves and gold was kept as a share dedicated to
Svetovid – the God of war. In 1171, the Danes attacked and killed all the men in a pirate base
which is suspected by archeologists to have been the one that is now called Behren-Lubchin.
It was a very impressive structure, including a 320m (!) long bridge and special platforms
which were used for breaking the ice around the stronghold during times of Winter. Saxo
Grammaticus himself accentuates that the fighting on that bridge was rather grueling and
dramatic. It was originally built by the Czrezpienian tribe somewhere at the end of Xth
century. In the same year, Wojsława, the beloved wife of Przybysław, died giving birth to his
second son (name unknown). Probably because of that, the depressed prince went to the Holy
Land with Heinrich – for there was simply no possible political reasons for him to aid the
destruction of a kindred people. Przybysław died in 1179 in Luneburg, during a knightly
tournament in which he was actively participating in. His son Borzywoj, inherited
the western part of the country, while the eastern part was ruled by Niklot II - son of
Warcisław.”

On the matter of the concept of reincarnation among Slavs:

“Medieval Christian sources, such as Thietmar, claimed that Slavs were practically atheists or
even nihilists, and that they’ve, according to him, believed that with the death of their flesh,
everything ends. Then, there are the much more reliable Arab and Jewish travelers,
geographers etc. like Abu'l-Hasan' Ali al-Mas'udi, who wrote that Slavic traditions, especially
the ones related to death, are similar to those found with Hindus. Some people claim that our
ancestors were spiritually more sensitive, that they could see more and experience more, and
that was one of the reasons why they were so radically religious. All cases of children
remembering their previous lives are limited to six-year-olds, because their brain start
receiving too much new information afterwards, and they’re simply made to forget all about
it. Could it have been longer in the past? We may easily imagine that children who knew
some facts, say, from their great grandparents’ lives and describe the time when the
grandparents of their parents were children, could strongly influence the beliefs of their
family or even of other people around them, but it should have been very common to become
the source of belief for the biggest ethnic group in Europe (if we’re strictly speaking of
Slavs). Yet it seems that the sources of this belief are far more “down to earth”, as we study
rather old traditional Slavic songs.
Let us look at two songs from two different regions of Poland. One of them tells the words of
a woman sentenced to death. She asks to be spread on the field, so the flowers would grow on
her ashes, and that the other girls would gather them while singing about her. In the other
song, we learn that "they will burn me to ashes, spread me on the field, flowers will grow
from me and the family will weap for me". Both of them refer to the tradition of burning the
bodies of the dead. The source of this tradition was the belief that the soul leaves the body in
the moment of the body is subjected to complete decomposition (which also explains the
numerous beliefs in undead monsters). This view is known from the analysis of archeological
sites, but there is also confirmation coming from Ibn Fadlan who wrote in a straightforward
and simple way that "the bodies are burned so that the soul would get to the other side faster."
From the very beginning of their hostry, when the Indo-Europeans first started burning down
parts of forests to facilitate the development of arrable grounds, it was very easy to observe
how one thing becomes another, how nature functions in cycles, and thus, the concept of
reincarnation was just a matter of time. After burning down the corpse but prior to that,
covering the ashes with ground, the family and friends of the deceased would have a party
over the grave. The purpose of that was to give ample energy to the soul for its impending
travel to the other side. Kosmas, who described pre-Christian Czech (Bohemian) traditions,
wrote that when warriors sacrificed animals to a God, they were in fact giving its life’
essence – the blood – for the God to drink, and they were also eating the meat of the animal
which was just sacrificed. This form of dining with the God was a source of power for them.
We also know that the Polish pagan priests (of the Lechites) would sometimes drink the
blood which was sacrificed to a God to get closer to him and make the contact easier to
establish. This practice was known in Ancient Greece as well. While the party performed
over the grave of the deceased was a bit different. The people participating in such a party
would wear either the so-called "corpse-paint," which was supposed to make them appear
dead, or "demonic" masks. Painting one’s face was one of the oldest warrior rituals in human
history. Initially, the purpose of this was to appear dead in the eyes of one’ enemy. There
were two components to it – a practical purpose and a symbolic meaning. The practical
purpose was to scare off the enemy, and as a symbol, it meant that the warrior is already dead
in his head, and that he had embraced death. However, in the case of funeral rites, it was
simply a means of protection. The undead were the biggest group in Slavic beastiary. The
participants wanted to help their friend or relative "pass over the river," but they needed to
protect themselves in the case he would like to stay with them, so they pretended to be dead
in order to do so. Vestiges of those traditions were present till recent times, especially among
among Ukrainians, Hungarian Serbs, Bulgarians, and Slovaks.
One could ask why is it in the songs mentioned that someone would "spread ashes on the
field". On the one hand, it may have been the artisitic freedom of expression employed by the
author, but on the other hand, it might simply refer to the fact that graveyards were always
made at some greater distance from the settlements to which they’re part of. Often you had to
cross a river to get there. For example, in the Mechlin stronghold, which was – according to
the Slavic strategic tradition – on an island, the cemetery was next to the shore on the other
side of the bridge, placed inside the continental defensive lines. Polabian and Pomeranian
territories are positively teeming with rivers and lakes, but not all of the tribes have lived in
same environment. They were using the "sea" of grass or moss, as a way to separate
themselves from the cemetery. There always had to be a symbolic border between the living
and the dead. Passing the water, grass or moss in those specific and peculiar places was like
passing into the world of the dead. It made contacting the souls of their ancestors possible, or
at least easier. Pomeranians were also sometimes burning bodies on boats, which, as a
custom, was also known in the annals of the early Rus. Drinking or consuming narcotics
during the party had necromantic purposes. Teofilaktos Simokattes describes the funeral that
Musokios, the king of Sclavines, organized for his brother, where he drank till he lost
consciousness. The reason for that was not necessarily grief or happiness over the fact that his
kin would go to Navia, but it also could have been a way to stay in contact with him for a
while longer, or at least help him to depart sooner. Furthermore, rituals of death of the like
were done cyclically. We cannot be sure whether it was a part of the cult of ancestors, or
more like making sure that the dead remain dead. In some regions, the custom was to make a
fire on the graves, and put bread on it or even bathe the dead by spilling hot water on the
grave. In retrospective, this was even more important in places and times when the death rites
were different, and the bodies remained whole, for example, in kurghans. On the other hand,
such as in the territories controlled by Charles the Great, the punishment for cremation of a
body was decapitation, which only goes to show how inherently Slavic this practice was.
According to some researchers like B.A. Uspienski, the Slavic “otherworld” was called
Wyraj, Raj and Irij, and it lay "on other side of the the great water," which was understood as
the Milky Way. The entrance looked like whirling water tunnels dragging everything inside.
Together with the spirits of the dead, birds and snakes have travelled there for the winter. The
returning birds and snakes in spring have symbolized the incarnation of the souls of the
forefathers into newer generations. This is also the source of the myth of a bird bringing a
child to the parents, and snakes were sometimes treated as the helping spirits of the house.
When the beliefs evolved, the otherworld was split into heaven – Raj or Wyraj, and the
underworld – Nawia. In Baltic languages, Nawia was called Vels, like the Slavic God of
underworld Veles/Wołos. The Slavic word Raj comes from Iranian ‘rayi, which means
wealth and happiness. Birds are the souls of the people who went to Raj. Snakes as chtonic
creatures, represent the souls that went to the underworld – Nawia/Nav. Boris Uspienski
thinks that the split for the heaven and "hell" was a later Christian intrusion and that
originally it was just one place -Nawia. According to him, even in later times, those two
worlds were next to each other, separated only by the river of fire.
Artur Kowalik, in his monumental work on Slavic cosmology, summarizes that the afterlife
was seen as a regeneration of the soul in the archetypical world of primal earth (paradise) to
gain strength for all lives to come. We should also note that this paradise had borders, which
makes his role similar to that of the womb. Water in its shapelessness symbolizes a lack of
definition and a hidden, unlimited potential. Because the road to the otherworld was
traditionally referred to not only as the Road of Souls, but also the Road of (Heavenly) Army,
we can’t be sure whether according to the ancient Slavic worldview, the soul would lose its
ego or not. European conceptions of reincarnation were merely pointing to a very tribal
nature of reincarnation. Souls seem to be enclosed in some kind of a "blood law," which
makes them reincarnate only within their family, clan or tribe. In addition, naming children
after their ancestors is a tradition which related to reincarnation. In Buddhism, this is hidden
under the euphemistic concept of "family karma." The significance of these necromantic
rituals for the people and the measures taken for protection from the returning dead seem to
suggest that the dead were believed to have had some kind of leftover identity that sometimes
made them stay in the world of the living, and for example, try to live in their former home.
Although this tradition has been lost to some extent, there are still important remnants among
the South Slavs. However, the belief has been altered a little – if a person is not buried in 40
days after dying, or is buried improperly (analogous to not being cremated), that person was
thought to have turned into the undead and risen to roam the earth and haunt all people
nearby. I am, of course, talking about vampires.”
On the plight of the Sorbs in Germany:

“After the reunification of Germany on 3 October 1990, Lusatians made efforts to create an
autonomous administrative unit, however Helmut Kohl’s government did not agree to it.
After 1989 the Sorbian movement revived, however, it still encounters many obstacles.
Although Germany supports national minorities, Sorbs claim that their aspirations are not
sufficiently fulfilled. The desire to unite Lusatia in one of the federal states has not been
taken into consideration. Upper Lusatia still belongs to Saxony and Lower Lusatia to
Brandenburg. Liquidations of Sorbian schools, even in areas mostly populated by Sorbs, still
happen, under the pretext of financial difficulties or demolition of whole villages to create
lignite quarries. The Germans are actively trying to commit a cultural genocide on the Sorbs,
and no one is stepping in to stop them, not even their immediate neighbors. When they use
their native language, they are being jeered at. Almost 100% of all Sorbs are bilingual and at
least half of them use German more often than their native language, plus they have no
perspectives unless they Germanize themselves. German authorities do everything to hamper
Sorbian aspirations for emphasizing their separateness and for autonomy. Denying all of this
would be a folly. After 10 centuries of physical extermination and repeated campaigns of
brutal discrimination the Sorbs have endured, albeit at the price of great loss and
denationalization of nearly 90% of the Sorbian population. A diminished number have
survived events that can only be described as cultural genocide. The current population of
Sorbs is estimated at about 60.000 people and rapidly melting away! Today, despite all the
rights enshrined for the Sorbian people in the Constitutional Acts of the Free State of Saxony
and the Land of Brandenburg, a considerable lack of political will is still being demonstrated
by the Federal Government of Germany and the respective Governments of Saxony and
Brandenburg to provide a lasting and meaningful solution to the challenges facing the
Sorbian people.

These challenges are numerous:

The lack of active political representation in either of the Land parliaments or the Federal
parliament of Germany. The continuous destruction of Sorbian inhabited territory, which is
supposed to be protected in the respective Constitutional Acts of Saxony and Brandenburg,
yet which in reality goes unprotected, ludicrously with the official sanction of the
government, as is the case with the Government of Brandenburg.
The notorious cuts by the Federal Government in funding provided for the Sorbian people,
upon which the entire Sorbian educational and cultural institutions are reliant and without
which the survival of these vital institutions is lost, thereby ensure the loss of the entire
Sorbian culture. Their very national fabric is threatened with these inevitable closures, the
evidence of which is already seen in the numerous lay offs of Sorbian staff. The lack of
proper access to different media such as TV and radio for the broadcast of Sorbian language
programs. Half hour programs offered once a month by MDR TV in Saxony and ORB TV in
Brandenburg are a far cry from what is actually needed to counterbalance the exposure of
Sorbian children to the ever-present German media, which in turn renders the efforts of
Sorbian teachers almost useless! Last but not least, the existence of the Sorbian "Witaj-
project" which is entirely based on the Canadian French language immersion program is a
great success story in Canada as well as in France for the Breton people, but in Germany after
its introduction for the Sorbs it continues to struggle! All these facts are evident in
"Domowina's" consecutive appeals to the UN Human Rights Commission and Amnesty
International protests against the respective German Governments' violations. They are also
present in documents of the European Union as well as other independent international
organizations.”

On the matter of anti-Southeastern European propaganda that dominates in Europe:

“The problem with this question and with the idea of "Balkanization" or a similar description
for this particular reason is the premise. The assertion that the Balkans are a region prone to
ethnic conflict or even more prone to ethnic conflict than other regions is a widespread
opinion/stereotype in modern Western Europe and is strongly connected to the construction
of that geographical area as the "other" throughout the 19th and 20th century.
Discussing this phenomenon as "Balkanism" historian Maria Todorova writes in the
introduction to her book Imagining the Balkans:
George Kennan (in his introduction to a 1991 reprint to a 1913 Carnegie Foundation report
on the Balkan wars, which was re-published as a commentary on the Yugoslav wars of the
early 1990’s) has been echoed by a great many American journalists who seem to be truly
amazed at Balkan savagery at the end of the twentieth century. Roger Cohen exclaimed "the
notion of killing people ... because of something that may have happened in 1495 is
unthinkable in the Western world. Not in the Balkans." He was quite right. In the Balkans
they were killing over something that happened 500 years ago, in Europe, with a longer span
of civilized memory, they were killing over something that happened 2000 years ago. One is
tempted to ask whether the Holocaust resulted from a "due" or "undue" predominance of
barbarity. It occurred a whole fifty years earlier but the two Balkan wars were even earlier.
Besides, Kennan wrote his essay only a year after the "neat and clean" Gulf War operation. In
seventeen days, American technology managed to kill, in what Jean Baudrillard claimed was
merely a television event, at least half the number of total war casualties incurred by all sides
during the two Balkan wars. If this is too recent, there was the Vietnam War, where even
according to Robert McNamara's In Retrospect "the picture of the world's greatest
superpower killing or seriously injuring 1000 non-combatants a week, is not a pretty one.
Whether the Balkans are non-European or not is mostly a matter of academic and political
debate, but they certainly have no monopoly over barbarity.
The dripping bite aside, Todorova's point here that it does indeed strike as strange that the
Balkans are regularly painted as a particular savage region or a region prone to ethnic conflict
when the totality of European history even reaching into the 20th century is full of such
examples like the Nazis committing the Holocaust and murdering hundreds of thousands of
Slavs, the Austro-Hungarians attempting to kill off the Serbian intelligentsia during WWI, the
French war in Algeria, the forceful population exchange between Greece and Turkey, the
expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe, and the conflicts over both Northern Ireland and
the Basque regions in Spain carrying on with considerable violence for decades.
As noted, Todorova calls this phenomenon of a discursive formation that understands the
Balkan as especially violent and inherently prone to ethnic conflict as "Balkanism", an image
frozen in time that is superimposed over the region, its history and especially the conflict of
the early 90s. Structurally, she describes it as similar to what Edward Said called
"Orientalism", meaning an image permeating media and imagination of what is deemed the
"Balkan" that portrays it as a negative category. There are crucial differences though:
1. The Balkans are concrete, whereas the notion of "the Orient" is vague and intangible.
2. Orientalism is a refuge from the alienation of industrialization, a metaphor for the
forbidden--feminine, sensual, even sexual. Balkanism, on the other hand, is not forbidden or
sensual. It is male, primitive, crude, and disheveled.
3. Balkanism is a transitional concept, something not quite non-European, not a final
dichotomy.
4. the self-perception of Balkan peoples is not colonial.
5. Orientalism posits Islam as the other, whereas Balkanism deals with Christian peoples.
6. Orientalism is fundamentally racist, categorizing non-white people, whereas Balkanism
deals with whites.
7. Balkan self-identity is itself created against an oriental other. Some of the most important
parts of Todorova's research and writings on the Balkans are that the Balkans as a distinct
space are a creation of the 19th century in the sense of its "discovery" by travel literature and
politics as an initial space where Christians were oppressed by the Ottomans and that it was
especially the Balkan wars and the outbreak of WWI – Gavrilo Princip as the "original sin" of
the Balkans – that lead to the region being associated with particular brutality and ethnic
violence. While this whole view also bears relevance for WWII, the time of second
Yugoslavia was one during which this idea of the Balkans as particularly violent or prone to
ethnic strife almost disappeared, only to make a comeback with a vengeance during the
Yugoslav wars of the early 90’s.
Crucially, Maria states that rather than representing something uniquely "Balkan", the
Yugoslav wars of the early 90s represent something very European and Western. Rather than
invoking processes that are unique to the Balkans along the lines of "these people have been
fighting each other for hundreds of years", these wars are the endpoint of the ultimate
Europeanization of the peninsula. Homogenization in a national and ethnic sense has a long
tradition in Europe, e.g., the expulsion of Jews from Spain and England, but with the 19th
century forward, this became the prominent notion of European history. In the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries the turning of peasants into Frenchmen, the unification of Germany and
Italy, the Holocaust, the repositioning of Poland, and even more recent obsessions with
cultural purity of "Judeo-Christian" Europe shows that the drive to create ethnically
homogeneous states is not exclusively a Balkan phenomenon but rather one that is a factor
throughout the whole of modern European history.
In line it is only recently with Dayton that the multicultural state as created/upheld by the
international community has made a comeback when before, ti was exactly the ethnic variety
of the region that people have seen as negative – Joseph Roucek's "the handicap of
heterogeneity." Even the outbreak of the Yugoslav wars is in party related to an international
community that aimed at dismantling Yugoslavia as a multi-national state. After all, the
arguments by Mock, Genscher and others in encouraging Slovenia, Croatia etc. to become
independent and supplying them with political and concrete help to do so were based upon
the injustice of the multi-national state and the necessity to achieve the ethnically and
nationally homogeneous nation state. The very European and Western notions of order,
regularity, and decorum saw ethnic confusion and disorder. How these conflicts that
supposedly prove the Balkanist view actually functioned on the ground can be best shown
with the research done by Hannes Grandits in his article Violent social disintegration: a
nation-building strategy in late Ottoman Herzegovina. in: Conflicting Loyalties in the
Balkans. The Great Powers, the Ottoman Empire and Nation-Building, ed. by N. Clayer, H.
Grandits and R. Pichler, London 2010, S. 110–134.
In it Grandits takes a closer look at how the Herzegovinian revolt that eventually led into
Serbo-Turkish and later into the Russo-Turkish wars of 1876–78 actually functioned on the
ground. This uprising is often portrayed as both prove for ethnic conflict in the Balkans as
well as for the rise of the nation against Ottoman rule in the area. The fact is though that it
started out as neither. Rather, it started as something fairly common, a refusal by local
political village leaders to pay taxes because the harvest had been bad in previous years.
Initially both sides were open to negotiations and a commission of a Pasha was send to the
area to negotiate with the peasants. Within these negotiations however, a group of local
nomadic bandits robbed an Ottoman caravan because they feared – rightly – those good
relations between authorities and peasants would threaten the support they received from
locals. This caravan attack led to Ottoman reprisals and while things seemed to be winding
again down after this, these reprisals caught the attention of young nationalists from Serbia
and Montenegro that traveled to the area to enlist the help of aforementioned bandits to fan
the flames of conflict. Suffice to say that despite the opposition of local village leaders, they
were successful because the spiral of violence this relatively small group of people managed
to lead to a homogenization of interests in the sense that local peasants were caught in
between fronts and had to declare for one side for fear of retribution or generally violence.
Furthermore, because he saw the chance to gain territory and weaken the Ottomans, the
Kniaz (local ruler) of Montenegro "internationliszed" the conflict by pleading for help from
Garibaldi who sent him Italian volunteers to fight with the rebels against the Ottomans. It was
really only this move which led to an internal and external perception of the conflict as one
that was "ethnic" or religious while most of the Herzegovians who actually fought on the
ground had started this not to end Ottoman rule or "expel the Turk" but rather as rebellion
simply to get central authorities to ease off with the taxes. Through a process of violence and
agitation, a relatively small group of what Roger Brubaker describes as nationalist
entrepreneurs managed to homogenize the interests of the local population with their own
politically goal. Such dynamics – and similar ones even in the beginning of the 90’s with the
Yugoslav wars – are not unique to the Balkans. Rather, they are indicative of a similarity
between the general "becoming a nation/ethnicity" through conflict. We can observe similar
dynamics in Italy during their wars of unification, in Germany during the Franco-Prussian
war and so on and so forth. What remains is the conclusion that the Balkans are not more or
less prone to ethnic conflict than other European regions or Western nations. This narrative of
Balkanism has little actual support in the history of the region but is something superimposed
on it at times when it was convenient on a discursive level in order to establish and perpetuate
otherness of the region “vis a vis” the West.
Balkanism is the American patrician version of the old aristocratic European paradigm
garnished with nineteenth century Victorian righteousness. It manifests an evolutionary belief
in the superiority of orderly civilization over barbarity, archaic predispositions,
backwardness, petty squabbles, noncoforming and unpredictable behavior, that is "tribalism".
The very use of "tribal" relegates the Balkans to a lower civilization category, occupied
primarily by Africans, to whom the term is usually applied. It is preposterous to refuse to face
the responsibility of both internal and external thugs and missionaries who plunged
Yugoslavia into disintegration, and explain the ensuing quagmire by "Balkan mentalities" and
"ancient enmities". It would do much better if the Yugoslav, not Balkan, crisis ceased to be
explained in terms of Balkan ghosts, ancient Balkan enmities, primordial Balkan cultural
patterns and proverbial Balkan turmoil, and instead was approached with the same rational
criteria the West reserves for itself: issues of self-determination versus inviolable status quo,
citizenship and minority rights, problems of ethnic and religious autonomy, the prospects and
limits of succession, the balance between big and small nations and states, the role of
international institutions. The same can be said for a variety of conflicts that arose
simultaneously and as a result of similar such conflicts all over Europe, whereas in the case
of the early 90s, it is much more useful to approach them with the same ideas and methods as
other European conflicts instead of relegating them into the reality of the "eternal strife" of
the Balkans.
Sources:
Maria Todorova: Imagining the Balkans.
Hannes Grandits: Violent social disintegration: a nation-building strategy in late Ottoman
Herzegovina. in: Conflicting Loyalties in the Balkans. The Great Powers, the Ottoman
Empire and Nation-Building, ed. by N. Clayer, H. Grandits, and R. Pichler, London 2010, S.
110–134.
Milica Bakic-Hayden, Nesting Orientalisms: The Case of Former Yugoslavia, Slavic Review
54, 4 (Winter, 1995), pp. 917-31.

Hom Sundhaussen: Jugoslawien und seine Nachfolgestaaten 1943–2011.”

Regarding the inherent hostility of “Pan-European ideas” towards Slavs:

“It is impossible, and will always go against Slavic interests. Every form of pan-European
integration was against Slavic interests, starting from Napoleon, Hitler and the EU and
NATO. They would be sacrificing their overwhelming potential and numerical advantage to
others, just like we they’re doing so withing the EU. Once they realise that none of them are
their allies, the better it will be. Slavic people, have the greatest potential (resources, land
mass, population, technology, industry, military etc.) in the world, even if they would unite
today, even greater than the Arabs, Anglo-Saxons, Latin Europeans or Germanic People do,
and that is whole point. And they are, unfortunately, the most divided group of people on
Earth.”

On the matter of the liberation of the Balkans from the Ottoman yoke:

“Ideas of nationalism began to develop in Europe long before they reached the Ottoman
Empire. Some of the first effects nationalism had on the Ottomans had a lot to do with the
Greek War of Independence and First Serbian Uprising. Also. ideas which influenced
Serbian, Bulgarian and Greek revolutions were Capitalist and Socialist ideas which were
opposed to Ottoman Feudalism. So, besides the ethnic, nationalist and religious component.
these movements and wars had a strong ideological, class and revolutionary component.
It's worth noting that events such as Serbo-Bulgarian war of 1885 or The Second Balkan War
were objective mistakes, which weakened all Balkan Christian nations. These events were by
large extent instigated by Austria (much like the creation of Albania) which sought to use
"Divide & Conquer" strategy in their "Drang nach Osten" policy. Bulgaria and Greece having
German Monarchs on their thrones didn't help either. The pretext for 1885 war was the
annexation of Eastern Rumelia by Bulgaria, which supposedly violated the Treaty of Berlin.
And in the case of the Second Balkan War, Serbian and Greek refusal to give more territory
to Bulgaria. Serbian reasoning was that Bulgaria failed to honor previous points in the
agreement, concerning supporting her allies against all foreign powers, and Bulgaria didn't
provide guarantees when Austria delivered an Ultimatum to Serbia, regarding the creation of
Albania, which effectively blocked Serbia from access to the sea. Should have the Balkan
nations worked at all costs to avoid war? Would a different version of Yugoslavia have
worked better? If Serbs formed a Union with Bulgaria instead of Croats, for example? Would
some sort of State Union or Alliance, based on Common religion (Orthodoxy), Common
interest (Fight against Islam and Western influence) and common civilization heritage(neo-
Byzantine), be able to exist between Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria? What are modern
perspectives of such political aspirations?”

On the council of Constance and its subsequent ramifications for Bohemia and Poland:

“The main purpose of the Council was to end the Western Schism (In 1414 there were three
Popes in Europe: Pope Gregory XII and Anti-Popes John XXIII and Benedict XIII). The
second was to discuss the heresy of John Wyclif and Jan Hus. The third issue which was the
conflict between the Kingdom of Poland and the German Order of Teutonic Knights. Polish
delegation was the only one (except Bohemian) which opposed the council when it
condemned Jan Hus to death and burned him, an action which didnt make Polish situation
any better. The pope, Martin VI, was already siding with the Teutonic Knights who also had
the support of the German empiror and sympathy of many Western European kingdoms. The
Teutonic lawyer and adversary of Polish delegation was a German monk Johhanes
Falkenberg whose speech contained these accusations against Poland: Polish king was a
Lithuanian who was born pagan. During the battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg in 1410, the
Poles were allied not only with the Lithuanian pagans but also with the orthodox christians of
Rus and pagan Tatars of the Golden Horde. The Poles voted against condemning the
doctrines of heretics John Wyclif and Jan Hus. In all his writings and speeches during the
Council Falkenberg was calling Polish king the 'infidel dog' or 'mad dog'. Here's a fragment
of his speech: "the emperor has the right to slay even peaceful infidels simply because they
are pagans. The Poles deserve death for defending infidels, and should be exterminated even
more than the infidels; they should be deprived of their sovereignty and reduced to slavery."
In response the leader of the Polish delegation, Pawel Wlodkowic, the Rector of Krakow
University, presented new Polish international doctrine: People have the right to tell to what
nation they belong, people have the right to decide their own future and for the sake of the
nation, rulers are obliged to respect the individual religious beliefs of its subjects, conversion
by force is not valid, illegal, sinful and worthy of condemnation, the conversion can’t be used
as an excuse for war against sovereign nation, maintenance of peace requires the creation of
an international tribunal and the ruling of this tribunal must be obeyed also by the emperor
and the pope, In the justified war the catholic nations can support non-catholic nations or use
the help of non-catholic nations. Wlodkowic then moved on to demand from the new pope
the condemnation of Falkenberg, whom he accused of heresy. Converting pagans by brutality
meant the Teutonic Order did not behave as Christians but as heretics, Wlodkowic announced
and he had a name for it: 'Heresia Prusiana'. Wlodkowic also formulated the first in modern
history Doctrine of Just War and presented it in Constance, which he then developed in his
writings. The Polish delegation also brought with them pagans and Christians from Zmudz to
testify about the horrors their lands have suffered for nearly hundred years of Teutonic
oppression. Pope Martin V took hostile position towards Poland and refused to give audience
to Polish delegation. And here comes the best bit: In view of the pope's indifference, a group
of Polish knights led by Zawisza Czarny of Garbow and Janusz of Tuliszkow forcibly broke
into the papal palace, broke the gates, disarmed the guards and forced the pope to officially
condemn Johannes Falkenberg together with all his works.”

On the ineptness of arguments in face of populistic sentiments and emotions:

“U jednom spisu, nacionalsocijalista Vilhelm Stapel objašnjava zašto su činjenice i argumenti

nemoćni u sudaru sa silinom populističkih emocija: „Budući da je nacionalsocijalizam
elementarni pokret nikakvi ga 'argumenti' ne pogađaju. Argumenti bi delovali samo da je
pokret narastao pomoću argumenata“. Na različitim mestima u svojoj ozloglašenoj
programskoj knjizi „Majn Kampf“ Hitler naglašava kako je pravilna masovnopsihologijska
taktika u tome da se treba odreći argumentacije i neprestano govoriti masama samo o
'velikom konačnom cilju'“. Ove reči izgovorene su 1933. kada se još nisu mogli sagledati
stvarni rezultati masovne psihologije fašizma”.

On Spengler’s take on Russia:

"Spengler regarded Russians as formed by the vastness of the land-plain, as innately

antagonistic to the Machine, as rooted in the soil, irrepressibly peasant, religious, and
‘primitive’. Without a wider understanding of Spengler’s philosophy, it appears that he was a
Slavophobe. However, when Spengler wrote of these Russian characteristics, he was
referring to the Russians as a still youthful people in contrast to the senile West. Hence the
‘primitive’ Russian is not synonymous with ‘primitivity’ as popularly understood at that time
in regard to ‘primitive’ tribal peoples. Nor was it to be confounded with the Hitlerite
perception of the ‘primitive Slav’ incapable of building his own State. To Spengler, the
‘primitive peasant’ is the wellspring from which a people draw its healthiest elements during
its epochs of cultural vigor. Agriculture is the foundation of a High Culture, enabling stable
communities to diversify labor into specialization from which Civilization proceeds.
However, according to Spengler, each people have its own soul, a conception derived from
the German Idealism of Herder, Fichte et al. A High Culture reflects that soul, whether in its
mathematics, music, architecture; both in the arts and the physical sciences. The Russian soul
is not the same as the Western Faustian, as Spengler called it, the ‘Magian’ of the Arabian
civilization, or the Classical of the Hellenes and Romans. The Western Culture that was
imposed on Russia by Peter the Great, what Spengler called Petrinism, is a veneer."
"It is after this Western decline—which now means U.S. decline—that Spengler alluded to
the next world civilization being Russian. According to Spengler, Russian Orthodox
architecture does not represent the infinity towards space that is symbolized by the Western
high culture’s Gothic Cathedral spire, nor the enclosed space of the Mosque of the Magian
Culture, but the impression of sitting upon a horizon. Spengler considered that this Russian
architecture is ‘not yet a style, only the promise of a style that will awaken when the real
Russian religion awakens’, Spengler was writing of the Russian culture as an outsider, and by
his own reckoning must have realized the limitations of that. It is therefore useful to compare
his thoughts on Russia with those of Russians of note.
Nikolai Berdyaev in The Russian Idea affirms what Spengler describes:
There is that in the Russian soul which corresponds to the immensity, the vagueness, the
infinitude of the Russian land, spiritual geography corresponds with physical. In the Russian
soul there is a sort of immensity, a vagueness, a predilection for the infinite, such as is
suggested by the great plain of Russia. The connections between family, nation, birth, unity
and motherland are reflected in the Russian language: род [rod]: family, kind, sort, genus,
родина [ródina]: homeland, motherland, родители [rodíteli]: parents, родить [rodít’]: to give
birth, роднить [rodnít’]: to unite, bring together, родовой [rodovói]: ancestral, tribal,
родство [rodstvó]: kinship. Western-liberalism, rationalism, even the most strenuous efforts
of Bolshevik dialectal materialism, have so far not been able to permanently destroy, but at
most repress, these conceptions—conscious or unconscious—of what it is to be ‘Russian’.
Spengler, as will be seen, even during the early period of Russian Bolshevism, already
predicted that even this would take on a different, even antithetical form, to the Petrine
import of Marxism. It was soon that the USSR was again paying homage to Holy Mother
Russia rather than the international proletariat, much to Trotsky’s lament." Of the Russian
soul, the ego/vanity of the Western culture-man is missing; the persona seeks impersonal
growth in service, ‘in the brother-world of the plain’. Orthodox Christianity condemns the ‘I’
as ‘sin’. The Russian concept of ‘we’ rather than ‘I’, and of impersonal service to the expanse
of one’s land, implies another form socialism to that of Marxism. It is perhaps in this sense
that Stalinism proceeded along lines often antithetical to the Bolshevism envisaged by
Trotsky, et al. A recent comment by an American visitor to Russia, Barbara J. Brothers, as
part of a scientific delegation, states something akin to Spengler’s observation: The Russians
have a sense of connectedness to themselves and to other human beings that is just not a part
of American reality. It isn’t that competitiveness does not exist; it is just that there always
seems to be more consideration and respect for others in any given situation. Of the Russian
traditional ethos, intrinsically antithetical to Western individualism, including that of property
relations, Berdyaev wrote: Of all peoples in the world the Russians have the community
spirit, in the highest degree the Russian way of life and Russian manners, are of that kind.
Russian hospitality is an indication of this sense of community."
"Firstly, Nikolai Vasilievich Gogol’s Taras Bulba, which along with the poetry of Pushkin,
founded a Russian literary tradition; that is to say, truly Russian, and distinct from the
previous literature based on German, French, and English. John Cournos states of this in his
introduction to Taras Bulba: The spoken word, born of the people, gave soul and wing to
literature; only by coming to earth, the native earth, was it enabled to soar. Coming up from
Little Russia, the Ukraine, with Cossack blood in his veins, Gogol injected his own healthy
virus into an effete body, blew his own virile spirit, the spirit of his race, into its nostrils, and
gave the Russian novel its direction to this very day. Taras Bulba is a tale on the formation of
the Cossack folk. In this folk-formation the outer enemy plays a crucial role. The Russian has
been formed largely as the result of battling over centuries with Tartars, Muslims and
Mongols. Their society and nationality were defined by religiosity. Gogol depicts the scorn in
which trade is held, and when commerce has entered among Russians, rather than being
confined to non-Russians associated with trade, it is regarded as a symptom of decadence: I
know that baseness has now made its way into our land. Men care only to have their ricks of
grain and hay, and their droves of horses, and that their mead may be safe in their cellars;
they adopt, the devil only knows what Mussulman customs. They speak scornfully with their
tongues. They care not to speak their real thoughts with their own countrymen. They sell their
own things to their own comrades, like soulless creatures in the market-place. Let them know
what brotherhood means on Russian soil!" Commerce is the concern of foreigners, and the
intrusions bring with them the corruption of the Russian soul and culture in general: in
speech, social interaction, servility, undermining Russian ‘brotherhood’, the Russian ‘we’
feeling that Spengler described. The Cossack brotherhood is portrayed by Gogol as the
formative process in the building up of the Russian people. This process is not one of biology
but of spirit, even transcending the family bond. Spengler treated the matter of race as that of
soul rather than of zoology. To Spengler, landscape was crucial in determining what becomes
‘race’, and the duration of families grouped in a particular landscape—including nomads who
have a defined range of wandering—form ‘a character of duration’, which was Spengler’s
definition of ‘race’. Gogol describes this ‘race’ forming process among the Russians. So far
from being an aggressive race nationalism it is an expanding mystic brotherhood under God:
The father loves his children, the mother loves her children, the children love their father and
mother; but this is not like that, brothers. The wild beast also loves its young. But a man can
be related only by similarity of mind and not of blood. There have been brotherhoods in other
lands, but never any such brotherhoods as on our Russian soil."

On the matter of the Polish rebuttal of German accusations during the Council of Constance:

“In response to that, in a speech given by Pawel Wlodkowic, the Rector of the Krakow
University, the Council heard the very first declaration of human rights in recorded European
history. It is almost impossible to imagine today the impact, which Wlodkowic’s doctrines
had on his audience in the late Medieval ages:
“Pagans have the right to property, to their traditions and to the development of their culture.
All people have the right to determine which nation they belong to and to decide their own
future. Rulers are obliged to respect all religious beliefs of their subjects. Conversion by force
is not valid, illegal, sinful and worthy of condemnation and it cannot be used as an excuse for
war against sovereign nations. Maintenance of peace requires the creation of an international
tribunal and the ruling of this tribunal must be obeyed even by the pope and the emperor.”
Wlodkowic also presented his Doctrine of Just War and the Polish delegation gave voice to
the simple Samoggitians from Lithuania who they had brought with them to testify about the
horrors their lands have suffered for nearly two hundred years of Teutonic Christian
“conversions”. Wlodkowic then demanded that the pope condemns Falkenberg and declares
“Heresia Prusiana” (converting pagans brutally is un-Christian heresy).
In the gathering, in which the discussion about pagans until then had been reduced to the
level of speculating whether they were human or not, Pawel Wlodkowic sounded like a
visitor from another world. Predictably, the Pope, the German Emperor and most of Western
European kingdoms sided with the Teutonic Knights against Poland. Yet this wasn’t the end.
The post-script to the story offers an amusing insight into the Polish psyche of the time. A
group of Polish knights, led by the legendary Zawisza Czarny of Garbow and Jan of
Tuliszkow, broke into the papal palace, disarmed the guards and forced Pope Martin V to
officially condemn Johannes Falkenberg’s works anyway, which he promptly did. In many
ways Pawel Wlodkowic in Constance really was a visitor from another world. After all, his
doctrines were the official state foreign policy in his native Poland and his Rights of Nations
and the Doctrines of Just War were taught at the Krakow Law School. Today it is difficult to
understand how pioneering those concepts were in the époque of conquests, religious wars
and persecutions, yet in Poland the principles of tolerance for all ethnicities and religions
remained an unshakable part of the state policies till the fall of the Polish Commonwealth in
1795. Poland’s contribution to the early Renaissance was not marked in the visual arts, as in
Italy (although Polish Renaissance art and architecture were to develop their own styles and
spread across the country), but mostly in the sphere of political thought and individual
freedoms, which also found their expressions in the pioneering Parliamentary developments:
the act of Neminem Captivabimus, 1425 (nobody could be imprisoned without trial, known
as Habeas Corpus in England, where it was passed in 1679); Privilege of Nieszawa, 1454 (the
king could only to go war or raise taxes with the permission of the local parliaments, the
Seymiki, across the country); Nihil Novi, 1505 (all the king’s actions had to be debated and
endorsed by both chambers of, national parliament, the Seym). Fifteenth Century Poland was
still in many ways a backwater covered mainly with thick forests and its capital, Krakow, was
a small city by European standards, but it was teaming with intellectual, commercial and
artistic life, fuelled by the general prosperity and a cosmopolitan, free-thinking atmosphere. It
abounded in early Renaissance interdisciplinary scholars, both Polish and foreign, and many
more were scattered across the country, like Grzegorz of Sanok, Filip Buonascorsi or Jan
Dlugosz, the first historian to base his research on original documents, who was also a
notable geographer, diplomat and church canon. Yet no scholar in the Fifteenth Century
Poland was to present a wider scope of interests or to have a bigger impact on the world than
a humble physician, church administrator, economist, translator of classical Greek literature,
diplomat for the Polish Crown, leading military defender of Olszyn against the Teutonic
Knights and in his spare time an astronomer, Mikolaj Kopernik, better known as Nicolaus
Copernicus. The greatest artist of the period, Veit Stoss, a German sculptor commissioned to
create the biggest triptych in Europe, settled in the city and his extraordinary altar is still in
the St. Mary’s Basilica.”

On the matter of Timoshenko’s title of being the father of modern engineering mechanics:

“Aside from the beam theory, he had pioneered buckling, strength of materials, elasticity and
offered general contribution to entirety of engineering mechanics, he had authored fifteen
seminal works which are still widely used today, he had gained 38 PhDs while being a
professor on several universities in the United States of America. After he became a faculty
professor in the University of Michigan, where he created the first bachelor's and doctoral
programs in engineering mechanics, at Westinghouse, he proceeded to organize and found
the Applied Mechanics Division of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME),
and prior to that, he assisted Vladimir Vernadsky in establishing the Ukrainian Academy of
Sciences, the oldest academy among the Soviet republics other than Russia. Timoshenko was
also a master at bringing universities and industries together without ever compromising on
the quality of education, this special blending of science and technology produced spectacular
results at many American schools, but more conspicuously at Stanford and MIT where
Timoshenko and his students were directly involved. Aside from that, all of his authorship
has been translated to 36 languages and is still widely being used, even today.”

On the matter of the overall contribution of the German states during most of history:

“German states have been impotent in the overal extra-European expansion, due to their
closed-up Continental position, and never managed to trully form Colonial Empires like
France, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, England or Russia did. But German people and nobility
greatly contributed to the rise of those empires. Many German commanders have served in
the armies of said countries. German states, as political organisms, however did not
contribute to European expansion and rise for mainly geographic reasons.”

The immediate reason for the violent outburst in the FYROM parliament, and its agenda:

“That happened due to the fact that Talat Xhaferi was declared as a parliament speaker in an
unconstitutional manner. Additionally, Xhaferi is a terrorist and a pardoned war criminal who
deserted the Macedonian army to join the terrorist group KLA (UÇK), 16 years ago on
today's date, the same terrorist who had murdered unarmed men and women, has the right to
speak in parliament and in another language. To add insult to injury, they've done this on the
anniversary of the murder of eight Macedonian police officers in the village of Vejce. As
usual, the Albanians seek to federalize yet another predominately non-Albanian country and
eventually, add its predominately Albanian territories to either Albania and Kosovo, to form
Great Albania, an “Albanian version” of Greater Serbia, but unlike the Serbs, the Albanians
are Western stooges, and thus, their behavior shall be tolerated.”

On the belief that Germany had fought alone in World War II:

“It wasn't just Germany. It was Germany, Hungary, Thailand, Romania, Bulgaria, Finland,
Italy, Japan. Also, parts of Yugoslavia. And the occupied countries. And the puppet nations.
And the volunteers. Matter of fact, it was the Soviet Union that fought alone during most of
the war, not Germany. Regarding the treaty of Versailles, firstly, of all the Central Powers,
Germany got the lightest punishment. Where she only had to pay in wartime reparations,
territorial restitution and nationwide disarmament, the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and the
Ottoman Empire had to do the same, while also being dissolved shortly after, even though
they've both caused less damage than Germany in World War I.
Secondly, it wasn't unjustified and it certainly wasn't too harsh, considering they've caused
the death of approximately 16 million people, carpet-bombed coastal England and an entire
part of France, violating the Hague convention by unleashing nerve gas and precipitating the
usage of forbidden weapons, and funded and spearheaded the rise of Bolshevism in the
former Russian Empire, which has inadvertently caused the death of more than 20 million
people in the events that have transpired as a direct result of it. And they've not fought to gain
the Lebensraum in the East to "battle" Bolshevism, they’ve fought to gain it merely for the
sake of petty imperial gain, that is why they've levelled most of material property in the
aforementioned part of the world, and killed more than 38 million of its native inhabitants in
less than five years. The idea that they’ve battled Bolshevism by murdering those who've
nothing to do with it and leveling their property, instead of wiping out those who’ve furthered
it is preposterous. Those who believe these diatribes are sorely misled if they think that
Gdansk was the reason why Germany had invaded Poland. The immediate reason was that
the German Reich was running out of hard currencies and had serious problems with
liquidity. Hitler needed either to drastically cut spending and introduce austerity measures or
find some territory to plunder and pay for his insane economic policy. Obviously, he chose
the latter, in large part because he was too scared to admit that his policies were a failure.
Gdansk was just a pretext and everyone knew that at the time. This is also the reason why
Poland refused to back down. In reality Poland offered Gdansk to Germany already in 1920’s
in exchange for the Germans permanently leaving them be. Poland simply wanted to delay
the handover until late 1940’s when the Polish seaport at Gdynia was to be complete. And
quite frankly, to those who think that there was “no need “for France and Britain to get
involved, as Poland’ sworn allies, then they should simply stay away from addressing history,
indefinitely.”

Further on the events that had transpired prior and after the Bolshevik revolution:
“The West was not interested in addressing the devastation which was wrought by the
Bolsheviks, for the Bolsheviks have accomplished that which the West had tirelessly
attempted to accomplish from the moment when Peter I had elevated Russia to the status of a
world power, to thoroughly destabilize Russia, take away her ability to singlehandedly
dominate Eurasia and further it’s Pan-Slavic agenda in Europe, which would've surely
toppled the German grip over most of Central, portions of Eastern and Southeastern Europe,
and grant Russia a passage to the Mediterranean sea. Further on, the main supporters of the
Bolshevik revolution were the Imperial Germans - its General Staff of Ministers and the
emperor himself. ”
On the “General Winter” phenomenon that plagues the Western mindset:

“The term was coined by Goebbels (as so many stereotypes and views that are “surprisingly”
still in use) in Autumn of 1941. Already then apologetic narrative begun to take shape that
sought to find more appropriate culprit for German defeat than own lacking, let alone their
“subhuman” adversaries. In reality Winter wasn’t even among several principal reasons for
German failure in 1941. Faulty intelligence that completely missed/intentionally ignored the
size and mobilization potential of the Red Army; allowing unsustainable attrition to the fast
units with rationalization that it’s okay because Soviet collapse was behind the next elusive
decisive victory, for which there was no solid scientific evidence, only a gut feeling of
collective Army and political leadership, and crown reason, amateurish, childish planning of
logistical component, by far single most important factor of modern warfare, especially
mobile. Despite overwhelming weight of these reasons, they are rarely even mentioned,
especially in popular narrative and by far not examined enough even in more serious
environment. And the boogie man, General Winter is put in front instead. Let’s examine how
much was this general really unpredictable and unsurmountable opponent, and how much
actually was of German making. As one staff officer from OKH said after the war-That it is
cold in Russia in that time belongs to the ABCs of Eastern campaign. And Germans indeed
had experience from the same front only couple of decades earlier. What went wrong then? In
July, OKH, not Hitler or some other universal culprit decided that due to early expected
victory, only occupation force of 56 divisions was to stay in Russia during the winter. Maybe
in July they could be partly forgiven for this forecast, but what followed was inexplicable and
pathetic planning on OKH’s part. In early September after witnessing dramatic demise of
their all-important fast units, observing uncompromisingly debilitating effect of their lacking
logistical and transport system, confronted by huge reserves and mobilization potential of the
Red Army- which all combine led to Pyrrhic victory at Smolensk and doomed Barbarossa,
OKH still (even before victory at Kiev was certain) predicted that only some 750 000 soldiers
will remain in Soviet Union during the Winter and ordered for Winter preparations
accordingly. OKH failed to provide winter equipment even for this number of troops, making
its failure complete.
STAVKA actually proved to be much more realistic and far-sighted organ than its
counterpart the OKH. STAVKA allowed itself to plan for defeat, to have plan B. For
example, even before the war three strategic defensive echelons were planned (border,
Dnepr-Dvina line and before Moscow) even if offensive was official doctrine for defence,
next only few days after the war started decision was made (at GKO) to relocate all important
industry from western USSR, even though Germans were still fighting border battles. Next,
In July defence of Moscow was already being prepared with maximum haste (units, and
fortifications). Zhukov actually used these units that were to guard Moscow to strike
overextended Germans at Smolensk, which broke Barbarossa and arguably turned the war
right there. In 1942 when Germans were fighting for Rostov and around Don, STAVKA was
preparing lines, reinforcements, building alternative railway routes and so on for lines 500
km away at Terek and elsewhere in Caucasus mountains. Such examples are numerous, but
the OKH failed to see anything that wasn’t in line with wild optimism. So, they’ve failed to
prepare and plan for Winter, failed to have any plan B for Barbarossa or Blau, failed to
prepare defenses in Ukraine in case if Soviets, by some miracle, weren’t defeated in battle of
Kursk, and so on and on. If we suppose for the sake of argument that OKH planned in time
for their 3 million plus soldiers to endure the Winter season in the East and even managed to
produce this materiel, there was of course question of transportation from warehouses in
Germany to the frontlines as far as Moscow, Tikhvin and Rostov.
Deficiency was two dimensional. First, as German specialist study showed before the war,
but was ignored, large scale operations were only possible to the depth of 500-700 km,
roughly Dnepr- Dvina line. This wasn’t something that Nazi zeal or German operational
proficiency could overcome, for this was the truth, and nothing but the truth. AGC’s positions
in late July/August/September east of Smolensk were beyond this range and already
experienced debilitating effects. Even for static warfare resources were strained to maximum
and officers in Yelnia salient for example were constantly reporting insufficient ammo that
had to be rationalized which resulted in decreased efficiency of performance and Soviet
dominance in firepower and artillery. Virtually all of AGC’s fuel was sent to Guderian’s
thrust south and it barely sufficed for that single task and eventually halted Guderian who had
to wait for Kleist to come to him as he was immobilized. Trains carrying vital fuel for AGC
were about half of what was calculated by the OKH that was needed for thrust on Moscow
(27 fuel trains per day), therefore no stockpiling was possible and Army was barely supplied
for day-to-day functioning. In October number of trains was even lower. To illustrate, for
Typhoon crucial Guderian’s Second Panzer group, reported day before the offensive that they
only received about third of promised fuel (promised amount was already a compromise) and
that they probably couldn’t reach even first objective. Second dimension was trucks, which
were expected to bridge the gap that will appear when mobile operations toward Moscow
begin between railheads and fast-moving units. By that time these truck fleets were critically
depleted by attrition and what was left was at the end of durability. The result was that in
November AGC had about 10% of their original truck fleets operational. These handicaps
were so great that after Vyazma Bryansk, even fuel and ammo were simply unavailable even
for elite units like Das Reich let alone food or bulky winter clothing and equipment, even if
prepared in Germany (which was not). Therefore, it’s clear that rain and winter merely
accentuated German weaknesses of their own making and not the other way around. Ostheer
manage to mitigate the situation partly by routinely and mercilessly confiscating shelter, food
and clothing from local civilians, for whom this in most cases meant slow agonizing death.
As much as German soldiers suffered from the winter, civilians (mostly elderly, women and
children) suffered even worse and by their hand. In this way Wehrmacht was directly and
systematically involved in war crimes and genocide. Memoirs are full of pitiful frozen
German soldiers fighting against the odds and elements, but omit horrific scenes of screaming
mothers with their children, begging for mercy, being kicked out of their huts into the snow
without food, blankets or coats of course.
Finally, you never hear Soviet’s lament about General Winter, which means they maybe liked
having troops poorly prepared for winter (as they came short in production of warm trousers
for example for about two million peace and most of units weren’t adequately prepared, even
elite guard units like 1st Guard’s rifle corps, that was for example deemed not fit for combat
due to poor winter equipment, but was thrown into battle anyway), but somehow, I doubt it.
German generals loved to take all the accolades and fame for undoubtedly brilliant victories
that came from their operational proficiency, but failures were always someone else’s
children, Hitler’s, or even, absurdly, of year’s season.”

On the belief that World War was caused entirely by the Germans and Soviet Russians:

“April 17 1939, Litvinov, in response to the British proposal to give Poland a unilateral
guarantee from the Soviet Union, proposed a draft of the Anglo-Franco-Soviet mutual
assistance Treaty, which provides for "every kind, including military, assistance to Eastern
European States situated between Baltic and Black seas and bordering on the USSR in case
of aggression against these States". France offered limited to a short Declaration of
intentions: to provide military support to each other, or solidarity support for the countries of
Central and Eastern Europe in case of German aggression against either of the defendants.
March 18, 1939, in connection with news of the impending presentation of a German
ultimatum to Romania, which was to put its economy at the service of the Reich, the people's
Commissar of foreign Affairs of the USSR M. Litvinov, through the British Ambassador in
Moscow, proposed to convene a conference of the six countries — the USSR, England,
France, Romania, Poland and Turkey — with the aim of preventing further German
aggression. However, the English side found the proposal "premature" and proposed to limit
the joint Declaration of England, France, the USSR and Poland on the interest of these
countries in maintaining the independence and integrity of States in Eastern and South-
Eastern Europe. According to the Anglo-French draft agreement of 27 may 1939 (with the
Soviet amendments of 2 June), which was taken as a basis for further negotiations, accession
to the Union was envisaged in the following cases: in case of an attack one of the European
powers (i.e., Germany) by one of the Contracting parties, in the event of German aggression
against Belgium, Greece, Turkey, Romania, Poland, Latvia, Estonia or Finland (it was
assumed that the Contracting parties guarantee the protection of all these States), if one of the
parties will be involved in a war over the provision of assistance at the request of a third
European country.
Meanwhile, Estonia and Latvia voted against guarantees from the UK, France and the Soviet
Union and on June 7 concluded with Germany, the treaties of non-aggression. Finland and
Lithuania also refused to accept Soviet assurances (Lithuania signed a non-aggression Treaty
with Germany in March 1939). The USSR, however, continued to insist on the inclusion in
the Anglo-Franco-Soviet Treaty provisions on the guarantees to the Baltic States or the
conclusion of a simple tripartite agreement without guarantees to third countries. August 14
1939, in the negotiations with the military missions of Britain and France, the Soviet side
raised the issue of red Army passage through Poland, and Galician and Vilenski corridors —
without which, in the opinion of the Soviet side could not be reflected possible German
aggression. It turned out to be a "dead spot" where the negotiations stood. The poles refused
to pass the Red Army through its territory, despite pressure from France. Known aphoristic
expression, Beck said the French Ambassador: "With the Germans we risk losing our
freedom, with Russians, their soul." August 17, negotiations were adjourned. 17th and 20th
August, the head of the French military mission General Doumenc reported from Moscow to
Paris.”

On the belief that the reassignment of troops in the later stages of World War II had played a
pivotal role in the shift of power in the East:

Regardless of the acute needs of the forces in the West, large transfer of German resources
had to be transferred from the West to the East, which ultimately contributed to successful
and less bloody Normandy landings. With the majority of the available equipment having
been dispatched to the East over the preceding months, shortages among the mobile divisions
stationed in the West could only be rectified at a slow pace. In consequence, by early June, 7
of the 11 available panzer or panzergrenadier divisions were still not fully operational or only
partially mobile. The need to reassign resources in the wake of these Soviet offensives also
proved disastrous to the German prospects of successfully defending France. The withdrawal
of 2 panzer and 1 infantry divisions, 1 heavy tank battalion, and 2 assault gun brigades meant
that OB West (High Command of the German Army in the West) was deprived of a total of
363 tanks, assault guns, and self-propelled anti-tank guns on 6 June 1944. Although the II.
SS-Panzerkorps with the 9. SS-Panzer and 10. SS-Panzer Divisions were ordered back to
France on 12 June, Allied air interdiction and damage to the French railway net delayed their
arrival at the invasion front until 29 June.
One can only speculate as to the possible consequences had the II. SS-Panzerkorps already
been stationed in France on 6 June. If II. SS-Panzerkorps (50,000 troops) would not be
transferred to the East and had stayed in France, with most of their motor vehicles being
intact and hence a high degree of mobility, it seems likely that the II. SS-Panzerkorps would
also have been employed against the Allied landings at a very early stage. While the early
deployment of an additional 2 panzer divisions with 245 tanks and assault guns may not be
enough to completely eliminate Allied beachheads, it would nonetheless have represented a
major reinforcement. At the very least, the German containment of the landings would have
begun far sooner, and, in turn, German defense lines would have become even more
formidable. Though the eventual outcome of the campaign would probably have remained
the same, for the Allies, breaching these defences would have entailed significantly higher
costs of time and blood- something that the Allies were not prepared for. With the British and
Canadian armies already experiencing dire shortages of trained infantry replacements during
the campaign, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill worried that fighting in
Normandy was degenerating into positional warfare reminiscent of the Great War, the
situation for the Allies could have been far worse.”

A summary of how NATO ripped away Kosovo from Serbia’ and Got Away with it under
International Law:
Step 1: Intervene in the Yugoslavia Civil War, support the unconstitutional secession of a
state (Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia), and demonize the Serbs in the Western Media.
Step 2: Blame the Remaining Yugoslavia for not stopping Bosnian Serbs from defending
themselves, even though they are no longer internationally recognized as citizens of
Yugoslavia.
Step 3: Push and pass a resolution expelling Yugoslavia from the UN.
Step 4: Have Europe solidify this decision through an Arbitration Commission claiming that
because NATO and secessions destroyed their country, Yugoslavia is no longer a member of
UN.
Step 5: Use their contested UN status as an opportunity to bomb Serbia under false pretense
in order to establish one of the largest bases in all of Europe and secure valuable ores in the
process. Also, tell the world you are "defending Muslims" from the monstrous Serbs to
justify this. Also, destroy all of Serbia’s vital infrastructure, so they're permanently crippled.
Step 6: When Serbia tries to argue this was an illegal and unauthorized War of Aggression
against a sovereign nation, have the ICJ rule that the international court designed to prevent
armed interventions exactly like this, lacks jurisdiction completely and permanently.

On the summary of Yugoslavia’ true purpose:

“The only reason people keep spreading propaganda about Tito is to hide the fact that the
“nationalists” that came after aren't even capable of painting what Tito had built. Yugoslavia
under Tito had the 11th highest standard of living in the world, debt at ONLY 16% of GDP,
trade surpluses - as it was exporting high quality goods and services able to compete globally,
Unemployment at 7%, one of the best healthcare systems in the world with one of the best
doctors and free for all citizens, same goes for the education, 5th or 4th strongest military in
the world, free and open borders – with the ability to work abroad as contractors (In the West,
most notably in Germany, they were actually praised as the most skilled workers creating the
greatest output). In general, a prototype utopia, compared to now - even compared to most
western countries as well. The only problem was the way the monetary policy was managed,
especially during the oil crises in the 70s and 80s. But this could have easily been fixed with
a pegged currency. But when Ante Markovic did that in 1990, it was too late - as he had
“nationalists” working against him such as Milosevic, sabotaging the central bank by taking
out loans and giving it to them constituents as gifts for votes, while at the same time printing
money like crazy - causing another series of hyperinflation. Not to mention all social services
such as free healthcare, education and so on were cut. All this under the directions of the
IMF.”

On the ongoing phenomenon of the demonization of Njegos:

“Prvi se oglasio Šerbo Rastoder intervjuom na portalu Analitika s kontradiktornim i

konfuznim stavovima o Njegoševom književnom i političkom djelu: čas hvali Njegoševo
pjesništvo, onda kritikuje njegove stihove kao šovinističke, potom zamjera onima koji su
predložili Zakon koji je simbolički vezan za Njegoša, ali ne podržava ni opstrukciju
Bošnjačke stranke, da bi na kraju poručio mladima da se iz Njegoševog djela ne mogu učiti
humanijem i boljem svijetu!? Je li u pitanju sitna demagogija i lukavost ili intelektualna
inferiornost ovog trostrukog akademika i profesora univerziteta, koji pozivanjem na Brodela
želi impresionirati neuku javnost, kad se pita zašto predlagači zakona Dan crnogorske kulture
nijesu vezali za ime Petra Prvog, knjaza Danila ili kralja Nikole? Ergo, ovako postavljena
dilema nije dolična nekom seoskom učitelju, kamoli profesoru univerziteta: Petar Prvi pisao
je epske pjesme i poslanice, knjaz Danilo koautor je jednog zakonika, a razlika između
Njegoša i kralja Nikole u književnom značaju, nije manja od razlike u naučnoj relevantnosti
između Brodela i ovog profesora istorije u Nikšiću, koji je sudski pravomoćno osuđen za
plagijat. U svom blistavom intelektualnom ekskursu Rastoder još kontemplira, “ne smatram
da je Njegoš kao pjesnik problem koliko je sporan Njegoš kao ‘parola’.” (Kako poezija, za
koju Rastoder još kaže da je “velika” može biti “problem”?). Kaže još Njegoš je “parola”!?
Ovo je zaista ekskluzivni prilog njegošologiji i ovu sintagmu treba ovjekovječiti u
bunkerisanom Rječniku CANU, čiji je Rastoder jedan od koautora. Po Rastoderu, dakle,
Njegoš je u interpretaciji današnjih obožavalaca prazna, propagandna riječ, marketinškog
karaktera, poput bajadere ili Nikšićkog piva. Akademik Rastoder implicitno tvrdi da je
opasno slaviti pjesnike, i da je to usud inferiorne nacije. U tom kontekstu kaže: “Rusi nemaju
takav problem sa Puškinom, niti Njemci sa Geteom”. Da je moj spornik malo proširio vidike
izučavajući kulturnu istoriju Evrope, saznao bi da su se u vremenu romantizma, narodnih
preporoda, i na takozvanim malim književnim jezicima pojavili bardovi, poput Petefija,
Prešerna, Mickijevića, Emineskua, Boteva, Frašerija… koji su i danas ključni toposi
nacionalnog identiteta.
Tako je i s Geteom: u savremenoj Njemačkoj postoje desetine simboličkih i memorijalnih
obilježja posvećenih autoru Fausta, dok je Geteov institut glavna nacionalna institucija za
promociju njemačkog jezika i kulture u svijetu. Rastoder raspreda i o istorijskom utemeljenju
Gorskog vijenca, u vezi s takozvanom istragom poturica. Istoričar je vjerovatno u pravu da se
taj događaj nije desio na način opisan u ovom dramskom spjevu, ali Njegoševa ambicija nije
bila da rekonstuiše istoriju, nego da stvori mit koji će imati mobilizatorski karakter za
oslobodilačku borbu one šake Crnogoraca koja se još odupirala silnoj turskoj carevini. Za
tumačenje vrijednosti književnog djela irelevantna je istorijska autentičnost: kad bi neko
rekonstruisao Tolstojev opis bitke na Borodinu, autor Rata i mira neslavno bi se proveo.
Književnost u klasičnom smislu nema svrhu da pozitivistički bilježi određene događaje, nego
da literarnim sredstvima, asocijativno, metaforički, metajezički “pokazuje, a ne dokazuje”. U
tome je ključna razlika između književnosti, i recimo, istorije ili sociologije. Istinska
literatura ne može zamijeniti političke programe: ne postoji nijedno značajno književno djelo
u kojemu je pisac preuzeo ulogu propagandnog agitatora ili ogoljenog ideologa, bez obzira na
javni angažman ili ambiciju da njegov tekst utiče na društvene tokove. U takvu zamku nijesu
upali ni najostrašćeniji angažovani pisci koji su pripadali ekstremnim rasističkim, fašističkim,
komunističkim ideologijama, poput Paunda, Hamsuna, Brehta, Maksima Gorkog ili srpskog
klasika Crnjanskog. Rastoder, prilježno, i izvan konteksta, citira stihove iz Gorskog vijenca
koji su uvredljive za Turke i islam, poistovjećujući ih s autorom, kasapeći na taj način
cjelovitost poetsko-filozofske potke ovog dramskog spjeva, zanemarujući uz to duh i poruke
ostalih Njegoševih djela - Luče mikrokozma, Šćepana Malog, kao i vladičinu političku
saradnju sa turskim velmožama onoga vremena koji su pokazivali izvjesnu distancu prema
sultanu. S druge strane, Š. Rastoder svako isticanje Njegoševih stihova u kojima pjesnik
uzdiže ljepote Stambola smatra neukusnim i “izanđalim”, jer se to ne uklapa u njegove
unaprijed postavljene teze o Njegoševoj nesnošljivosti prema Turcima i islamu. Rastoder u
tom kontekstu omalovažava i Miljenka Jergovića, najpoznatijeg savremenog
bosanskohercegovačkog i hrvatskog pisca, a bez elementarnog osjećaja mjere uznosi Rusmira
Mahmutćehajića, za kojega kaže da je jedan od najvećih evropskih intelektualaca, čiji su
“iskazi iz njegovih knjiga” prevedeni na sve svjetske jezike (u svijetu ima oko sedam hiljada
jezika)! Rastoder hvali Mahmutćehajića prevashodno zbog toga što je ovaj profesor
elektrotehnike, bivši političar i kulturni aktivista, u svoj knjizi Andrićevstvo, napisao ono što
Rastoder govori još uvijek indirektno: da je Njegoš duhovni i ideološki inspirator mržnje
prema muslimanima, pa samimi tim i etničkog čišćenja i genocida u dijelu Bosne i
Hercegovine.
Mahmutćehajić manirom socrealističkih ideologa stvara normativnu doktrinu koja grubim i
neukim simplifikacijama Andrićevo i Njegoševo djelo svodi isključivo na ideološko-
propagandnu dimenziju. On ne pravi distinkciju između Andrićevih retrogradnih
narodnjačkih političkih nazora i njegovih romana, čija je “temeljna osobina stila objektivnost
pod kojom ključa privrženost autora prema svojim likovima”. Orhan Pamuk, turski
nobelovac, Andrića smatra svojim pretečom, i nastavlja: “Andrićevi romani su djelo veoma
pažljivog istančanog oka koje vidi i obraća pažnju na detalje iz tradicionalnog života
muslimana i otomanskog svijeta”. Da je u pitanju šira aktivnost Rusmira Mahmutćehajića
kojom želi Njegoša predstaviti kao ostrašćenog šovinistu i islamofoba, pokazuje i to da je
prošle godine, uz pomoć Rastoderovih saradnika, pokušao da organizuje u Crnoj Gori seriju
promocija ove opskurne knjige. Od mene su tražili da im pomognem njeno promovisanje, a ja
sam to htio učiniti – Mahmutćehajić je svojevremeno imao prijateljski odnos prema
antiratnom pokretu u Crnoj Gori – da mi ovu knjigu nijesu poklonili i zamolili da je pročitam.
Bizarne i sumanute ideje u vremenima potpune političke i moralne dezorijentacije imaju
stanovitu javnu pozornost i relevantan društveni uticaj. Različite političke patologije, pa i one
koje se međusobno satiru, po principu spojenih sudova, nalaze saglasnost u najbizarnijim
stvarima, poput navedenih tvrdnji da su najblistavija djela stvorena u južnoslovenskoj
literature, ustvari, duhovni predtekst najgorih nacionalističkih bestijalnosti. Zanimljiva je
činjenica da su među ovim rigidnim šovinistima najbrojniji bivši komunistički apartčici, koji
su nemilosrdno progonili sve što je mirisalo na nacionalizam. Jer, dogmatizam svih vrsta,
vjerskih i ideoloških, odraz je sužene svijesti i potpune duhovne tuposti i neosjetljivosti.
Dogmatski um, ipak, u našim savremenim okolnostima često nije posljedica samo duhovne
prostote i postojanosti karaktera nego i sitnoračundžijskog oportunizma i moralne
iskvarenosti: zato se ovaj tip bivših partijaca-novih nacionalista endemski razmnožio u
zemljama bivšeg komunizma. Oni, danas, ne ubjeđuju samo druge nego i sebe da su bili
ketmani koji su iznutra potkopavali marksizam, kako bi danas s jednakom strašću branili
stavove koje su lani demonizovali. Stoga, istom strašću kojom su propagirali Marksov
Kapital i Statut SKJ, prihvatili su druge “svete knjige” religijskog, antikomunističkog,
antisekularnog sadržaja. U ovoj priči nije nevažna činjenica da je Šerbo Rastoder bivši
partijski sekretar na Filozofskom fakultetu u Nikšiću i egzekutor u isključenju iz Partije i
radnog odnosa jednog nastavnika univerziteta. Takođe, Rastoder je u vrijeme opsade
Sarajeva bio saradnik listova koji su promovisali etničku mržnju i nesnošljivost prema
muslimanskom stanovništvu. Takav intelektualno-moralni profil nije u stanju spoznati
kompleksnost jedne tako ingeniozne, svestrano obdarene i, uz to, usamljene i tragične
ličnosti, kao što je Petar Petrović Njegoš.
Rastoderovo selektivno poistovjećivanje iskaza književnih junaka Gorskog vijenca sa samim
autorom, pritom ne analizirajući, u užem i širem semantičkom kontekstu djela, metafizičku
simetriju protivrječnosti u iskazima vladike Danila i igumana Stefana: čudesno vječno
smjenjivanje zanosa i ironije, očajanja i bahatosti u dijalozima sukobljenih Crnogoraca i
Turaka, svjedoči i u istoričarevom slučaju o tome da “ko vidi jedno ne vidi ništa: ko vidi
hiljade pojedinosti vidi jedno”. Dogmatska svijest je nesposobna da dijalektički sagledava
istorijski proces. U tom smislu važno je naglasiti da je Gorski vijenac kao angažovano
književno djelo objavljeno 1847. imalo jednu političko-mobilizatorsku konotaciju do 1913. i
odlaska Turske imperije sa Balkana, a potpuno drugu ulogu u vrijeme obije Jugoslavije, kad
muslimani postaju jedna politički neartikulisana i umnogome ugrožena etnička i kulturna
grupacija. (Stavljati u istu ravan očajnički prkos Vuka Mićunovića u zemlji “odsvud
stiješnjenoj” i govor Ratka Mladića prije srebreničkog klanja – kao što to rade srpski i
bošnjački kleronacionalisti – najgori je cinizam i istorijski falsifikat). Njegoš piše Osman paši
Skopljaku da mu je” brat Bošnjak”, i još kaže: “Ja bih rad da sam se malo docnije rodio, đe
su se sebe i svojijeh spomenuli i đe javno i pred kazali da su oni dostojni praunuci i potomci
starijeh vitezova našega naroda. Kada se ova sveta riječ izgovori blago cijelome našemu
plemenu, onda će ime crnogorsko bosanski i proči vitezovi srpskoga naroda (istaknuo M. P.)
kako sveti talisman (amanit, zapis) čestvovati i u njedrima nositi.”
Razvidno je da Njegoš Bošnjake smatra u svemu ravnopravnim sa “pročim vitezovima
srpskoga naroda”, a ne kao baliluk, kojemu se poslije odlaska Turaka treba svetiti i
ugnjetavati ih zbog njihovog “vjeroispovijedanija”. Konačno nije potrebno mnogo
imaginacije i intelektualne rafiniranosti i pretpostaviti da bi onaj koji je napisao”al’ tirjanstvu
stati nogom za vrat dovesti ga poznaniju prava, to je ljudska dužnost najsvetija”, u vrijeme
potonjih ratova u bivšoj Jugoslaviji bio uz progonjene a ne one s onima što ih progone: da bi
nemilosrdno kritikovao pamfletiste Minovićeve Politike i Konatareve Pobjede, kao i ostale
ratne huškače. Dakle, temeljno nerazumijevanje Gorskog vijenca od strane Rastodera i
njegovih istomišljenika izvire iz njihove autoprojekcije: Njegošu pripisuju svoje
poistovjećivanje bosanskih i crnogorskih muslimana s osmanskom imperijom. Opore poruke
koje Njegoš kroz svoje likove iskazuje u Gorskom vijencu odraz su jedne gotovo beznadežne
situacije u kojoj se nalazi Crna Gora okružena velikom neprijateljskom evroazijskom
imperijom. Tako on u pismu Nikoli Tomazeu ističe: “Je li kervavije stranice u svemirskoj
istoriji od crnogorske? Je li strašnije, viteškije i duže borbe među nejednakostju jošte svijet
vidio nego što je vidio borbu crnogorsku poslije padenija carstva na Kosovu?” Rastoderovo
nekritičko vezivanje Bošnjaka za osmansku civilizaciju istorijski je sporno i politički
nerazborito, makar onoliko koliko je štetno i anahrono političko rusofilstvo nekih njegovih
političkih partnera. Iz Rastodera vidljivo progovaraju izvjesni kompleksi dok gorljivo
obrazlaže: jesu li “poturice” gori od najgorih ili bolji od gorih. (Prije nekoliko godina Š.
Rastoder mi je na jednom skupu u Tirani rekao: “Najbolji su se Crnogorci turčili”.) Ja ne
mislim ni da su Turci bili civilizovan okupator ni da su oni koji su mijenjali vjeru, naciju,
ideološki svjetonazor, političku stranku, bili ni najbolji ni najgori: jedni su se konvertovali
zbog oportunističkih razloga, drugi zbog osvete, treći iz znatiželje. To što osmanska Turska
nije svoje podanike masovno prevodila na islam, niti je rušila njihove bogomolje, imalo je
ekonomski i politički rezon. Lakše je hrišćane kontrolisala preko njihovih svještenika koji su
bili turski podanici, i uz to inovjerci su plaćali veće dažbine nego muslimani. Koliko je, pak,
bila napredna osmanska Turska može se i danas vidjeti upoređujući zemlje koje su vjekovima
bile podložne Stambolu sa prostorom koji je bio okupiran od strane Austro-Ugarske,
Francuske, Venecije. Istina, poslije odlaska turske carevine kod oslobođenih hrišćana stvorio
se mentalitet revanšizma. Nacionalisti iz hrišćanske većine poslije 1913. često su javno ili
indirektno vrijeđali muslimane zbog njihove lojalnosti nekadašnjoj Turskoj carevini i
posmatrali ih sumnjičavo, bez obzira što su oni i u obije Jugoslavije bili njeni najlojalniji
građani, sa većim stepenom sekularizma nego većina ostalih konfesionalnih i nacionalnih
zajednica. Posljednja ratna stradanja i progoni Bošnjaka stvorili su kod dijela njihove
populacije razumljivu frustraciju, što je u poratnom vremenu uzorkovalo da se u nekim
političkim i religijskim krugovima stvori ozračje izolacionizma i vjerskog radikalizma, i na
taj način upadne u zamku onih koji su bili planirali uništenje BiH. Stoga Bosna i Hercegovina
danas funkcioniše kao konfederacija vjerskih i političkih lidera, sa prećutnim dogovorom da
svaka kasta nekontrolisano vlada u svom ataru, podgrijavajući pritom međusobne sukobe
niskog ili nešto višeg inteziteta. Bojim se da političari iz Bošnjačke stranke, SDP-a i
Pozitivne Crne Gore, koji su se još u decembru 2013. opirali usvajanju zakona da se za Dan
crnogorske kulture izabere rođendan najvećeg crnogorskog pjesnika, nijesu svjesni da bi svoj
narod mogli dovesti u izvjesnu kulturnu getoizaciju koja prethodi političkom izolacionizmu.
Crnogorska nacionalno-politička struktura je toliko krhka da je svaki poremećaj može gurnuti
u bosanski scenario. Tim prije što na poslu destrukcije Crne Gore, kroz oživljavanje etničkog
i klerikalnog nacionalizma, već dugo rade neki centri, unutar i izvan zemlje.
Ove koncepcije svakako nijesu nepoznate Šerbu Rastoderu, koji je u političkoj koaliciji sa
Goranom Danilovićem i Srđanom Milićem, tvrdokornim srpskim nacionalistima, koji još s
jednakim entuzijazmom trče u Beograd i Moskvu, na svaki mig srpskih i ruskih nacionalista,
“kao ovce na solilo”. Rastoder vjerovatno smatra da Bošnjaci treba da gledaju svoja posla, i
da trguju sa politički suprostavljenim predstavnicima pravoslavne većine. Ova taktika
kratkoročno može biti primamljiva i merkantilno isplativa, ali u moralnom i političkom
smislu bila bi katastrofalna za Bošnjake, građansku profilaciju i političku stabilnost Crne
Gore. Za razliku od velikih naroda koji su kroz istoriju uvijek govorili o pravu, male nacije su
grozničavo tražile pravdu: minorne zajednice ukoliko se povedu za kratkoročnim interesima i
odreknu principijelnih načela, u svim velikim igrama postaju moneta za potkusurivanje. Tako
Crnogorci koji su početkom devedesetih godina ustali protiv progona Bošnjaka, i zaštitili ih
1999. od namjere Legijinih crvenih beretki da naprave pokolj u Rožajama, Petnjici, Plavu i
Gusinju, prevashodno su branili sebe gradeći međusobno povjerenje koje im se vratilo
ogromnom podrškom bošnjačkog naroda na referendumu 2006. godine. Svaki elementarno
razborit čovjek mora uvažiti sve kulturno-nacionalne varijete Crne Gore, pa i ono što se ne
uklapa u njegov uskonacionalni interes. S obzirom na krhkost unutrašnjih odnosa, koji su još
pod snažnim recidivima nedavne prošlosti, i opasnih vanjskih hegemona koji imaju podršku u
Crnoj Gori, potrebno je pažljivo odmjeravati svaki potez koji se tiče međunacionalnih
odnosa. S druge strane, ukoliko nacionalni Crnogorci, koji su uprkos brutalnoj stoljetnoj
asimilaciji, relativno većinska nacija u Crnoj Gori, samim tim i glavni stožer
mutikulturalnosti, nijesu u stanju simbolički inaugurisati svoje najviše duhovne i kulturne
vrijednosti među kojima djelo Petra Petrovića Njegoša ima počasno mjesto, dovodi se u
pitanje i sami opstanak crnogorske nacije i Crne Gore kao samostalne države. Jer, u
postcrnojevićkom vremenu crnogorski identitet se oblikovao u etosu, specifičnoj moralnoj
tradiciji, koja se konačno definisala i imenovala kao crnogorsko čojstvo. Njegoš i Gorski
vijenac su na neponovljiv način ovaplotili duh herojskog bratstva, pa je pojava ovog
dramskog spjeva bila inicijalni događaj koji je od anarhičnih plemena okupljenih oko slabog
državnog centra stvorio konture odjelitog nacionalno-kulturnog subjektiviteta. U tom
kontekstu Slobodan Tomović ističe: “Slično pojavi cvjetanja u biljnom svijetu, veliki
spjevovi izražavaju suštinsku duhovnost i ljepotu svakog ponaosob civilizacijskog korpusa,
ali I visoku spoznaju koju karakteriše zrelost formirane narodne samosvijesti. Na taj način oni
služe, kao živo svjedočanstvo proteklih vjekova i svega najvrednijeg što oni u sebi sadrže. U
tom kontekstu, valja shvatiti istorijski smisao i značaj Gorskog vijenca”. Crna Gora danas,
deceniju poslije obnove državne nezavisnosti nije identična onoj Crnoj Gori od prije pedeset
ili sto pedeset godina. Brojni ratovi, migracije, nasilne političke promjene, mijenjanje deset
državnih oblika i imena u potonjih stotinu godina, ogromne tehnološke promjene, i sukobljeni
kulturno-ideološki koncepti, umnogome su Crnu Goru promijenili u društenom i političkom
pogledu. Crnogorci su obnavljanjem nezavisne države na referendumu 2006. koji su priznale
sve nacionalne zajednice izgubili svoju vjekovnu istorijsku državotvornu ekskluzivnost, i
odsad će je morati dijeliti sa ostalim nacionalnim zajednicama koje su priznale rezultate
plebiscita. U tom smislu sve ostale nacionalnosti, dakle i Bošnjaci, imaju nešto veću
odgovornost za budućnost ove države. Dakako, Njegoševa je grandiozna figura u tako maloj
kulturi uzrokovala mnoštvo epigona i nekritičkog odnosa prema tradiciji. Ali, duhovna
tromost, sklonost imitaciji i manjak sposobnosti za prepoznavanje novih estetičkih i poetičkih
tendencija opšta su mjesta svih naših duhovnih provincija. Njegoš, naš savremenik, svakako
ne bi pisao o istrazi poturica, i ne bi ga inspirisali samo epski junaci, antička mitologija i
Milton, nego i, recimo, Volt Vitmen, T. S. Eliot, Časlav Miloš, Josif Brodski Lars Gustafson.
Za kraj analize ovog galimatijasa umišljenosti, mimikrije, arogancije i provincijalnog
udvorišta, ostavili smo pedagošku poduku profesora istorije budućim generacijama: “Kao što
se s guslama teško može svirati rock muzika čini se još težim poduhvatom Njegošem
podučavati mlade, boljem i humanijem svijetom”. Sugeriše li to Rastoder da se iz tradicije ne
može ništa naučiti ili da se treba kloniti loše tradicije? Po svemu sudeći u pitanju je ovo
drugo, jer on se ne bi usudio ni pomisliti da se mladi nemaju što naučiti, na primjer, od
Dželaludina Rumija ili Avda Međedovića. Ovakvu drsku glupost, koja nije manja od
njegovog inkriminisanog plagijata, možete izreći samo u Crnoj Gori, a da intelektualna
javnost ostane gluva i nijema. Rastoder, dakle, ne razumije to da je istinska književnost
dugovječnija od političkih ideja te da se odnos prema književnoj i kulturnoj baštini ne mjeri s
političkom aktuelnošću književnih klasika. Njegoševe političke ideje u svom vremenu bile su
napredne, oslobodilačke i državotvorne, ali on je bio pjesnik s vizijama a ne prorok, i neke
njegove ideje još su žive, druge je pregazilo vrijeme. Međutim, Njegoševo djelo ostaće
vječito životvorno – uprkos neslućenim promjenama digitalne civilizacije koja će usloviti i
drugačije poglede na kulturnu baštinu – jer je u njegovim dramskim i filozofskim spjevovima
s neuporedivom misaonom i izražajnom ljepotom i snagom, ovaploćeno “svečovještvo koje
je izgrađeno na dubokom osjećanju svjetskog protivrječja i nedokučivosti pokretačkih
snaga”.”

Addressing the way Muslims argue:

“When Muslims debate, they employ the following tactics, in full or in part, 1. Distraction:
The Muslim will try to divert attention from the argument at hand and avoid debating the
issue directly 2. Ad hominem logical fallacy: The Muslim will try blaming the messenger and
not debating the message 3. Fallacy of relevance a "red herring": The Submitter will attempt
the "two wrongs make a right" tactic (or the Tu Quoque logical fallacy) - In employing
evasive tactics the Muslim unwittingly admits the correctness of their opponent's original
argument by implication. A typical Islam-apologist tactic is to try to prove Islam is the
second worst case, as if this were a good thing.”

On the belief that no one in Germany was aware of the transgression of their army:

“Millions of Germans were directly involved or witnessed mass killing- policemen, soldiers,
SS and their families. There are plenty of source materials such as diaries, letters to next of
kin back in Germany describing what was going on the East. Majority of German society
knew about extermination policies. I do not get why things like this happen? Is this for
money somehow? Is this an attempt to rewrite what has happened? Cleaning national
conscience? Ive heart about Alfred Benzinger, but is this just a continuation of that policy?
Some kind of cultural war on themselves?

On the belief that the USA did not develop a geopolitical interest in the dissolution of
Yugoslavia:

“U.S. leaders have consciously sought to dismember Yugoslavia, and that is not a matter of
speculation, but of public record. In November 1990, the Bush administration pressured
Congress into passing the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, which provided that
any part of Yugoslavia failing to declare independence within six months would lose U.S.
financial support. The law demanded separate elections in each of the six Yugoslav republics,
and mandated U.S. State Department approval of both election procedures and results as a
condition for any future aid. Aid would go only to the separate republics, not to the Yugoslav
government, and only to those forces whom Washington defined as “democratic,” meaning
right-wing, free-market, separatist parties., (meaning those who'd turn a blind eye to the USA
and the West' impending looting of Yugoslavia' industry and natural wealth). Source: Public
Law 101-513 Nov 5 1990, Multilateral Economic Assistance”

Further on Germany’ involvement in the subsequent dissolution of Yugoslavia:

“Since it’s unification, Germany has been the chief supporter of all states with whom they
were allied with in World War II. Yugoslavia was always seen as a threat to the German
political elite. WW1 saw unimaginable atrocities committed against Serbian citizens (men,
women and children) by German led Axis troops in Yugoslavia. WW2 again saw Germany
attempt to destroy the Serbian ethnic group and with it the nation of Yugoslavia. Germany in
the 90’s saw yet another opportunity to destroy Yugoslavia and with it the cultural identity of
the Serbian nation. Germany encouraged its perennial allies within Yugoslavia; Albanians,
Croats, Slovenes and Bosnian Muslims, those three groups have been a valuable German
Allies in both World Wars and the German leadership knew that it can count on these
quizzling populations to do its bidding.”

On the matter of lesser known facts regarding the Treaty of Versaillies:

“Germany lost little land and what it did lose was mostly ethnically Polish (even managed to
maintain Western Polish territories within its territorial landmass), Germany's industry was
basically untouched by the war while they ravaged France', the treaty did not balance that out,
Germany entered the war with Europe's largest continental GDP, exited the war with the
same and underwent great economic growth until the depression, reparations were designed
to look much worse than they really were, French/British specifically designed reparations
that Germany was able to pay, total bill that Germany had to pay was $12.5 billion, to
appease their populations at home, the allies designed the treaty to look like Germany was
paying $33 billion. The Germans were able to turn this around and make it look like they
were forced to pay far more than they could afford.”

Even more on the matter of the supremacist nature of the Normanist theory:

“This theory was first presented in the 18th century by Gerhard Friedrich Müller, a German
ethnologist and historiographer who was one of the first to theorize a general summary of
Russian history, he was the one who began the trend of over-accentuating the role of
Scandinavians and Germans in the founding of Russia, and physically destroying all
information that would challenge his theses. His own assistant, August Ludwig von Schlözer,
was the first to inform Lomonosov about it, who was initially very supportive of Muller's
work, of what Muller is doing. Lomonosov was outraged, and as a result, withdrew his
support of Muller's work and made sure to hinder Muller's aspirations. In 1766, after a
number of protests and petitions made against Muller, his position of historiographer was
terminated, but the damage done to Russian historiography and its archives was staggering
and irreparable, and as "punishment", he was appointed "keeper" of the national archives,
where he persisted in his efforts of physically destroying records that challenge his theses.
Incidentally, he became member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, where his
(Normanist) theory was lauded and adopted as part of stately dogma. Prior to his career as a
historiographer, he was a successful ethnologist, a fact which helped him build his reputation
among his Russian and German peers, a reputation which shielded him from suspicion.
Further on, the only substantiable claim within the structure of the Normanist theory is the
claim that the Varangians were Norsemen from today’s Sweden, unlike the rest of his claims,
which are mere premises with relative substantiation, and were ultimately proven wrong by
the findings of aforementioned Soviet archaeologists, the contents of the Primary Chronicle
that address the origins and geneaology of the Rurikids, by the Rus-Byzantine treaties and by
the results of Y-DNA and aDNA studies, which have proven that the historical Rurikids were
predominately Slavic in terms of aDNA, and entirely Slavic in terms of Y-DNA (I2a1b, R1a
and E1b), with subclades which are found only among Slavic peoples.
These are the claims of the Normanist theory:
-That Scandinavians migrated to the Ancient East-Slavic area. (In reality, only in fringe
numbers, a few hundred, including women and children)

-That Kiev’s ruling dynasty was established by Scandinavians. (In reality, they were Slavs,
the ruling family of the Rus', as per every Rus-Byzantine treaty and the Primary Chronicle –
where they swore by Perun and Veles, not Thor and Odin, and were described to have been
originally Slavic before their interaction with the Varangians)
-That the name Rus’ is etymologically Old Norse.
(In reality, even the Germanic Sagas don't refer to them as being a Germanic people, aside
from that, all of the Rus’leaders’ names had Slavic forms as their earliest historically attested
forms of their names in all primary sources)
-Those Scandinavian migrants influenced the development of the East-Slavic state.
(In reality, the Varangians have only acted as the bodyguards and traders of the Rus', and
sometimes as tutors)
-Those Scandinavian migrants created the first East-Slavic state.
(In reality, there are no remains of Norse buildings, not even minor settlements or temples)
-That the Scandinavians succeeded because of their racial superiority.
(In reality, Scandinavia was the least developed, influential and irrelevant part of Europe
during most of recorded history, and as such, were always lagging behind Slavs as a whole,
regardless of historical period)
-That the past shapes current politics: specifically, that descendants of Scandinavians are
natural rulers, whereas Slavs are natural subordinates. (In reality, the theory in question was
furthered by the Holstein-Gottorp cadet branch Romanovs, who, due to being grossly
unpopular, whether by the masses, or by the Russian nobility, sought alternative ways to
solidify their authority, through subversion of history). Matter of fact, the Normanist theory is
the first historically attested form of state-sponsored Russian propaganda, where an
unpopular leader utilized foreigners, pseudo-history and an extremely liberal interpretation of
folk mythology to devise a justification for its need for absolute power and indisputable
authority, thus the reason why the theory was later adopted as state dogma, and academically
challenged only in the later stages of the 1800s, when the Russian academy began to grow
more independent from the ruling apparatus, even though it was originally challenged in the
form of Lomonosov’s anti-Normanism.”

Summarized assessment of the post-Sociast phenomenon of “autochthonism”:

“Autochthonism is a form of weaponized anti-intellectualism that runs rampant in post-

Socialist, South Slavic societies. Since the adherents of this “movement” are either poorly
informed of their pan-ethnicity, or know nothing of it, they proceed to, in all of their
desperation and insanity, to seek validation for their delusional beliefs and pathological self-
hatred from the traditional enemies of Slavs, namely Westerners, Turks and Albanians. As a
result, they’re emboldened in their quest of adopting a "new" identity which will liberate
them of the “burden” and “taint” of being Slavic, and that way, they'll no longer be, in their
own twisted opinion, "subhuman and perpetually inferior". Its all pitiful, and beyond rational
explanation. Autochthonists aren't merely illiterate, delusional and self-hating, but also the
embodiment of weak, demoralized and intellectually dishonest individuals who spend their
short lives seeking affirmation of those whom they perceive as their superiors.”

On the matter of the futility of the thesis that the South Slavs are merely “slavicized, native
“Paleo-Balkan” peoples:

“The haplogroup I2a1b, and especially our specific subclade of it, has nothing to do with the
Thracians or any other Paleo-Balcanic people, and firstly, that can easily be seen even
without the ancient DNA samples, merely by observing the diversity of the haplogroup which
reaches its maximum among Slavs who've prior to settling to Southeastern Europe, lived far
more to the North than the Slavs of the R1a variety, and as you can imagine, every
haplogroup has a substantially greater diversity in their original, or former habitat. Then, that
can also be seen in the fact that our sub-branch of the haplogroup I2a, the one which your
kind identifies as “Thracian" or whatnot isn't differentiated below or beneath the current
I2a1b marker (in the sense that it does not belong to some downstream, further widerspread
SNP to be discovered in more recent times). By now, our marker CTS10228, was so far only
ever found in one Alsace-Lorraine man, and matter of fact, the haplogroup in question has
derived from the "Disles" branch of the haplogroup I2a1b (= L621 which, at the same time, is
not our CTS10228), which, as an older one, is mainly found in Southwestern Europe. If we're
talking strictly of ancient finds, I won't even mention how many separate and different studies
were testing the prehistoric Balkan population from various places and from different
periods, and none of those have found even a single sample that belongs to the larger, general
I2a1b haplogroup, let alone samples of our, deeper South Slavic branch within it. Further on,
regarding the Thracians, Illyrians and the Moesians themselves, there are only three types of
samples that were ever found among them, samples of the haplogroup R1b, E, and J2. But not
to digress, this is clear, undeniable proof that the haplogroup I2a1b, and especially our South
Slav subclade of it, has nothing to do with the "Paleo-Balkan peoples". Matter of fact, the
haplogroup I2a1b was introduced to the Balkans by the migrating Slavs who’d soon be
known as the “South Slavs”, and the leftover Goths and the Bastarnae, who were also carriers
of the haplogroup and this particular subclade. And as one can imagine, they’ve introduced
this haplogroup only in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Aside from that, the
Glagolitic alphabet (and the earlier forms of the Cyrillic) is not based of the “Bulgar”, or
should I say, Kuban alphabet, for its letters are predominately of the Greek variety, with a
few notable exceptions that were adopted from the now extinct Pre-Christian Slavic writing
system, like the letters “Ⰱ, Ⰶ, Ⰷ, Ⰻ, Ⰼ, Ⱀ, Ⱁ, Ⱄ, Ⱈ, Ⱍ, Ⱓ”. And no, the Bulgars did not, in fact,
“segregate the Slavs”, for prior to settling modern-day Bulgaria, they’ve travelled together
and were allies, the troubles between them have flared up only after the ruling family began
to undermine the self-administrative autonomy of the Slavic tribes who’ve accompanied them
by implementing Byzantine-based land and law reforms that were an infringement on their
their sworn rights. Aside from that, Bulgarian nationalists, then men who’ve freed Bulgaria of
the Ottoman yoke have only ever identified the Bulgarians as a Slavic people, for they, unlike
autochthonists, knew their history, and were proud of who they are. Further on, I understand
that the usage of the popular name “Bulgarians” was commonly misused by Serbian, Greek
and other nationalists during the late 19th/early 20th century historiographic, political and
military conflicts about the Slavic population of “geographic Macedonia” as something
stigmatizing, something stated to offend. Ultimately, Bulgaria’s Slavic language, personal
names, folklore, symbols, popular customs, proverbs, some vestiges of Slavic pagan past
firmly confirm their essential Slavic identity (also related to the most of modern day FYROM
Slavs which use the Macedonian name for almost a century). There are also other cultural
inputs acquired through more than one thousand years of their existence in the Balkans i.e.
from the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, to some extent from the Ottoman rule (which
applies to some other nations in the region) as well as through a minor influence of Russian
language on standard Bulgarian in modern times. Contrary to the rising self-loathing and
dilletante dogmas and beliefs, the cultural role of medieval Bulgaria, where the Cyrillic
alphabet was invented, for the rest of Slavic world, is a pre-eminent one. Bulgaria, till the mid
14th century, was one of the cultural centers and hubs of Slavic (just like Medieval Serbia),
not Thracian culture, It should also be noted that some Bulgarian nationalist pseudo-
historians promote “Iranian” and “Thracian” origin for the Bulgarians, but this is nonsense
based on folk-etymologies (i.e. ‘Ezerovo ring’) and literal, non-critical reading of medieval
sources, where (Slavic) Bulgarians were called by some archaic, anachronistic Paleo-Balkan
names (“Thracians”, “Moesians”).”

On the Albanian belief that they’re of the same origin as Montenegrins:

“Firstly, Albanians and Montenegrins, even though they're sharing the same border, don't
cluster closely on any genetic map, and matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of your
subclades don't cluster with theirs either, with the exception of a few fringe E1b subclades
found in regions that border with Northern Albania. Further on, you're also almost entirely
devoid of one of their chief haplogroups, which is I2a1b-Din, which only exists as as fringe
element in Albania, and only in the parts of Northern Albania that were once part of the
Montenegrin tribal system.
Secondly, before any Albanians decide to utilize Coon's initial assessment of the
Montenegrins and the Albanians, they should know beforehand that he was no ethnologist,
just an anthropologist, and, based his opinion on conclusions gathered from the Albanians of
the barjak of Grude (historically, a tribe of Montenegrin Serbs). In short, due to his own lack
of knowledge of Montenegrin and Albanian tribal or general history, he has established a
connection between unassimilated, proper Montenegrin Serbs and their albanized
counterparts. Besides, Montenegro (unlike Albania) is the European epicenter and hotspot of
the Upper Paleolithic - Cromagnon phenotype, a phenotype which is almost entirely
nonexistent among Albanians (with the exception of the barjak of Grude, for aforementioned
reasons), and Albanians, as a people, are predominately of the Alpinid, Dinarid and
Mediterranean in race, a fact which Coon in his work, "The Races of Europe", there is even a
map of his which roughly shows the predominance of varying phenotypes, a fact which also
invalidates his earlier made assessments of the purported connection between the
Montenegrins and the Albanians.
Thirdly, none of the Montenegrin folk costumes are even remotely similar to that of
Albanians, neither in design or origin. Matter of fact, neither is your tribal system of the same
variety as theirs, for yours is a clan system, while theirs is a system of tribes. The basis of
your clan system are mere clans, the "fis", which can be, depending on the circumstance,
united into larger conglomerates, like "barjaks", and these "barjaks" would then be further
united into genuine tribes, but never permanently, while the Montenegrin tribes were always
just that, genuine tribes, not clans. Montenegrin tribes are, in the majority of cases, composed
of fraternities who share a common ancestor/progenitor, with a few notable exceptions, like
the Uskoci and Cuce, tribes that are composed of fraternities with diverse origins, who were
formed for the sake of preservation against the looming Ottoman threat. There is also the fact
that some of the Montenegrin tribes were formed of Vlastela families, like the Ozrinici and
the Saranci, a fact which is unheard of among Albanians.
Fourthly, the bulk of the Montenegrin haplogroups have arrived to their modern-day
homeland in late antiquity, meaning, in the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th century AC, and that
correlates only with the "Great Migration", and the Slavic invasion of the Balkans, a fact
which also rules out the possibility of them being "Slavicized Illyrians/Albanians". Also,
unlike Albanians, the Montenegrins were the only people whom the O. Empire never
conquered, and have, unlike Albanian tribes, never served the Ottomans.”

Further on the matter of the pigmentation of the WHG/SHG, the Indo-Europeans and their
precursors:

“There was not a single allele for blond hair found among European samples until late
Mesolithic and settlement of IE precursors (EHG) from the East. Moreover, the earliest
confirmed allele for blond hair comes from Siberian hunter-gatherer Afontova Gora 3
(15.000 B.C.), not from anywhere in Europe. All untainted IE cultures (Corded Ware,
Andronovo, etc.) were also found to be predominantly blond-haired and blue-eyed. And
modern Scandinavians have nothing to do, in sense of physical anthropology, with European
natives - that is more than self-evident, considering how they craniometrically, as a group, are
nothing akin to Upper Palaeolithic natives, but most commonly are of "Nordic"-type
spectrum typical of IE settlers. They do not even have 1% total of combined Y-DNA lineages
(I2a1b, I2a1a-L1287, and few others) which Mesolithic natives of Scandinavia carried.
Further on, you simply can’t use modern-day state to try to debunk actual origins, and
secondly, if you do just that, then you are wrong in the assessment of that state, therefore
your argument carries absolutely no weight at all. The Celtics, Italics, and the Greeks, they
are are far from pure Indo-Europeans. Italians and Celts (and other peoples who stem
primarily from Bell Beaker branch of IE) intermixed very heavily with peoples they came
across, and that is an evident fact, the same goes for the branch from which Greeks descend
(Yamnaya), which intermixed with non-Indo-European even while still in the southernmost
reaches of steppes. Original Slavs were craniometrically of Nordic spectrum ("On the whole,
the ancestral Slavs of Poland were Nordics, within the range of the Indo-European group,
these skulls lean to the longer- and larger-headed Corded extreme, and resemble in many
respects, the Hannover series, and by extension, the Anglo-Saxons." - TRoE, ch. VI sec. 7),
and even today northern Slavs are still very blond (northern areas of Poland equaling
Scandinavian means) - without any need for Germanic influence. Same goes for Baltic
peoples. Unfortunately for many who misuse data of this variety, The IE which arrived to
Scandinavia en-masse encountered a very sparsely settled population of native hunter-
gatherers, together with a few Neolithic farmer arrivals, therefore not much admixture could
occur in first place.
We must keep in mind that ancient DNA samples (and physical anthropology as well, which
shows modern morphological and metrical representatives of UP native European type are
very rarely blond, while those of Nordic IE type are almost exclusively so) are proof of it.
Further on, the only Y-DNA Yamnayans carried was R1b-Z2103 (along with few assimilated
I2a2), therefore it is almost exclusively responsible for IE branches which settled
southeastern Europe, but not for the vast majority of Europe which was settled by Corder
Ware and Bell Beaker cultures. Not to mention Yamnayans were *the most admixed IE
culture of all*, for they intermixed with Neolithic Globular Amphora culture from a very
early date. In the end, those who deny that are ignoring the three pillars which demonstrate
massive continuity of blondism gradually arriving from east into Europe:
1. Oldest genes for blond hair were found in Afontova Gora 3 specimen from Upper
Palaeolithic Siberia, mostly ANE-derived.

2. EHG of Mesolithic Russia (ANE-derived to good extent, R1 carriers), as direct precedents

to more massive IE migrations from east which would come later, were universally blond and
light eyed (such as Samara).

3. All IE cultures except Yamnaya (which, regarding Europe, only settled southeastern
Europe), such as Andronovo (posted study above) and Corded Ware were, again, full of
blondism. Secondly, Motala hunter-gatherers were admixed with EHG (main Mesolithic
precusors of IE, ANE-derived to a great degree) which came from the east over northern part
of Scandinavia which connects it to Finland, that's why they had a few alleles for blond hair,
but the vast majority of them was still dark haired (check the supplementary info). Namely,
Motala2, Motala3, Motala4 and Motala12 were all dark-haired (Torsten Günther et al. 2017,
page 56, supplementary info), while only Motala1 and Motala6 exhibited some alleles for
lighter-shaded hair, but not a *full set*, therefore it is highly improbable that even their hair
was purely blond (again, check the supplementary info). Moreover, it is symptomatic that
purest individuals, i.e., with least EHG admixture (like Motala12, with mere 12%) show no
alleles at all for blond hair. Not to mention that all Mesolithic Europeans unadmixed with
EHG/ANE from the east were exclusively dark-haired, as was demonstrated, and in earlier
times (Upper Palaeolithic) exclusively dark-eyed as well. To add to all of that, even without
genetic studies it was certain and known in physical anthropology long ago, as not a single
native European skeletal remnant could be classified as being of Nordic type, which was
already present in the EHG and brought by Indo-Europeans.”

On the matter of Korolev’ superior genius:

“After World War II, the Americans managed, through Operation Paperclip to put together
just about the entire Nazi German V-2 rocket development group. Along with that, they had
all the blueprints, and all the design notes as well, since the German scientists had fled with
them, rather than destroying them as they had been ordered. On the other hand, Korolev had
spent most of the war in a Gulag in Siberia, which he had been sent to, thanks to the forced
confession of Glushko, his main rival in the “rocket engineering” field in Russia. Russia had
a lot of the spoils from Penemundo, including complete V-2 rockets, but when Glushko was
unable to reverse engineer them, he begged the Politburo to bring back Korolev, knowing that
he was the only one who could understand them.
So, Korolev already had a late start behind the U.S. program, although the U.S. was so
unconcerned with Russian rocketry, that they were slow-playing most of von Braun’s work,
on the basis that they were all ex-Nazis and not to be trusted. Korolev had an education in
aeronautical engineering, so he was no slouch on science, but his main impact in his first job
showed that he excelled at engineering and organization as well as coordinating complex
projects. It was this knowledge that put him in charge of the Russian ICBM program. But
Korolev still had to work with Glushko, the man who had sent him to a prison camp for over
half a decade. It’s interesting to note that Korolev’s sentence was still in force but “pending”
until 1957. So, he was also working with a potential axe over his head during the entire time
leading up to the launch of Sputnik. Korolev also had to tolerate the vagaries of Russian
politics. Glushko had more favor in the Kremlin, so he was put in charge of rocket engines,
while Korolev designed the entire system. Korolev would often turn over designs, which
Glushko would then modify and fail to deliver. The R-3 rocket engines, which needed to
deliver higher thrust to achieve a 3000-mile range, were cancelled after Glushko failed to
produce them multiple times. As he worked on the V-2 derivatives, he realized that orbital
flight was possible, and worked towards the R-7 booster. But the Politburo had no interest in
science, wanting only ICBMs, at least, right up until the United States announced the
possibility of a satellite launch. Then they green-lighted Korolev’s R-7. Korolev, working
from the design of the German A4 rocket, built the R-7 booster, the first multi-clustered
engine with 5 engines each one using 4 combustion chambers to increase output. For once,
Glushko followed the plans, and Korolev was able to demonstrate the world’s first true
ICBM in 1957, launching a warhead from Baikonaur to Kamchatka on the Siberian
peninsula.
In the meantime, the science division had been working on a massive satellite, but once the
R-7 launched, the Politburo told Korolev he would need to launch his satellite as a prelude to
the 40th anniversary of the October Revolution. With less than a month, Korolev scrapped
the large satellite, which the R-7 still didn’t have the thrust to launch into orbit and replaced it
with the Sputnik 1 probe, the assembly of which Korolev managed personally. Thus, on
October the 4th, 1957, Korolev, the former gulag prisoner sentenced to death during Stalin’s
Purge, put the world’s first satellite into orbit. Nikita Kruschev basked in the international
glory, while Korolev lived in hiding. Officially he was only known as Glavny Konstruktor
(Главный Конструктор), which translates to “Chief Designer”. This was to protect him from
foreign assassination attempts, which was a real threat in those days. Despite this, Kruschev
pushed him for a more spectacular launch only a month later, and he delivered again,
launching Sputnik 2 on the anniversary of the October Revolution, November 4th (The
Russians stayed on the Julian calendar until after the revolution, meaning their October was
the rest of the world’s November.) On board was Laika, the dog, and the first living creature
sent to space. Again, Korolev, despite all of his barriers, had beaten von Braun and the United
States to the punch. Sputnik 3, the original science satellite that had been scrapped for the
one-month deadline to launch Sputnik 1, was launched into orbit on May 15th, 1958.
Unfortunately, its data recorder failed, and it provided little actual science, allowing, for the
first time, for the U.S. to get a first with the Explorer 3 and Pioneer 3 satellites mapping the
Van Allen radiation belts. But the Sputnik 3 launch also put the fear of God into the United
States, because orbiting the massive satellite showed that the R-7 was now capable of
depositing a nuclear weapon anywhere in the world. This was both good, and bad for
Korolev. The military minded Politburo now had a rocket that could reach the United States,
so why did it need anything else or anything bigger?
Korolev was given funding for an attempted Moon probe using the R-7 rocket, but then was
forced to rush all the launches for political reasons. He also had to design the first rocket that
would be fired completely in outer space, on the second stage of the rocket that would send
the probe to the moon. After three failures, the Luna 1 mission in 1959 succeeded in reaching
escape velocity, another first for Korolev, but the probe missed the moon by 6,000
kilometers. Luna 2 would follow in September of 1959, and become the first man made
object to impact the moon. Luna 3, launched two years and 3 days after Sputnik 1 not only
orbited the moon, but sent back to Earth the first pictures of the Lunar far side. In 1958,
Korolev had already turned to the much trickier task of sending a man into space. He
personally designed large parts of the Vostok spacecraft, and led the program to put a man in
space. It was designed to be fully automated, with the cosmonaut as little more than a
passenger. After five orbital unmanned test flights, carrying dogs, the last two of which
successfully de-orbited and landed, they were ready to try it for real. Yuri Gregarin climbed
on top of a modified R-7 and was launched into orbit on April 12, 1961. Less than 4 years
after Sputnik 1. Korolev racked up yet another first for the Soviets, and then did it again with
5 more successful flights, including the 81-orbit flight of Vostok 5, and the first woman in
space, Valentina Tereshkova on Vostok 6. And with all this success, Kruschev cut his budget.
Sure, all this stuff was great for the press, but it was expensive and gave nothing to national
defense. Korolev came up with plans for reconnaissance satellites and communications
satellites, but Kruschev only wanted him to get more “firsts” in the manned program, so long
as he could do it “cheaply.”
When Korolev balked at moving to multi-person capsules, Kruschev, driven by reports of the
U.S. Gemini program, simply threatened him with handing over the space program to his
rivals. So, with trepidation, they built and tested the Voskhod, which could carry three
astronauts, but only without spacesuits, as its mass was so high, it could only safely land
when it had been stripped of all excess weight. After multiple tests where the parachutes
failed, they finally moved to a stronger material, and the Voskhod 1 was launched with three
cosmonauts aboard in October of 1964, something the U.S. would not match until the Apollo
flights of 1967.On the next flight, in March 1965, with only two cosmonauts, they would
perform the world’s first space walk. Ditching the third cosmonaut gave them the weight
allowance they needed for the spacesuit for the space walker. During this entire time, Korolev
had been working on designing the massive N-1 moon rocket. Based on the NK-15 engine,
the rocket would have been larger and more powerful than the Saturn V used for Apollo. But
again, Glusko stood in the way, refusing to design an RP1/LOX engine for Korolev, saying it
was too difficult and that Korolev should stick with his new RD-270 engine that ran on
UDMH/N2O4. This combination is hypergolic, meaning that it self-ignites, but it’s also
highly toxic. Korolev didn’t like the idea of a manned flight powered by hideously poisonous
fuel.
The N-1 was cone shaped, with open airflow through the first and second stages. This
actually provided additional air boundaries between the rings of NK-15 engines, and would
have acted to augment the thrust, as well as act as a sort of crude torroidal aerospike design.
In that respect, the N-1 is truly decades ahead of its time. But, Korolev faced the facts of
Soviet era development. Because of politics, development of the N-1 didn’t begin until
October of 1965, when Kruschev was no longer in office, nearly 4 years after von Braun had
gotten the go-ahead for his moon rocket, the Saturn V. Korolev wanted RP1/LOX engines on
the N-1, not the UDMH/N2O4 engines that Glushko favored. He turned to rocket designer
Nikolai Kuznetsov, who had no experience in large engines. Therefore, the NK-15 was a
small engine, requiring a giant cluster of engines. Eventually the NK-15 was made very
reliable and very powerful, as proof, it’s now called the NK-33, or the Aerojet AJ26–58 in
the US, (and its derivative the RD-180 used the technology of the NK-15, and is used on the
Atlas V) and the surplus engines made for the N-1 program are still being used around the
world. But in those early days, it was a new and untested engine. The engine was small,
though, and needed 30 engines to achieve the thrust needed. 30 engines led to 30 sets of
plumbing, and the rocket was extremely complex. Korolev thought he could work through
these problems and still send Russia to the moon before the Americans, but fate intervened.
Before even the first test launch, Korolev died in January of 1966 either of a heart condition,
a intestinal tumor. Without him guiding the program, the N-1 program failed, exploding on
all four attempted launches. The reason I lean towards Korolev is that the last of the Russian
“firsts” occurred under Korolev, and when he died, the Soviet space program stagnated for
decades. Arguably, even the Soyuz capsules they fly today are still remnants of Korolev’s
influence, as well as the rockets that now fly those capsules, the Soyuz rockets, which have
taken every American astronaut to the ISS since the shuttle’s retirement. Those rockets are
direct descendants of the R-7 and Korolev’s design for the Soyuz rocket itself.
Really, apart from the Proton rocket used for cargo launches (which was the alternative moon
rocket to the N-1 pushed by Vladomir Chelomei in the 1960’s) all of the Soviet Space
program other than Buran are still based on the work of Sergei Korolev to this day. Even von
Braun can’t say that. Further on, Korolev’s accomplishments were easily comparable given
his humble early education, his time in the Gulag, and the limited resources he was given to
work with. Where Von Braun’s work was given wartime priority under the Nazis and later,
the full support of the immense US economy, Korolev had to have his rocket engineers
design and build housing, sanitation facilities, and a power station before he could even start
on his launch complex. The Soviet space program under Korolev is notable for a string of
firsts stemming from an admirably practical approach to engineering and later overreach
notwithstanding. Von Braun, on the other hand, was a natural fit for the American penchant
for over-design, which is one contributor to their abortive steps beyond the cosmic shore.
Like German industry during the war, they'd build flashy things, but things so impractical,
that once having met the expediency of the moment, they were quickly cast aside. And last
but not least, the results speak for themselves, Korolev was the one who sent the first satellite
in orbit, and the first man in orbit. If he had the support US gave to von Braun, I’ve no that
doubt Korolev would’ve vastly outdone von Braun in a rather obvious manner.

On Great Moravia’s intentionally underlooked power:

“Svatopluk’s remarkably strong position was immediately recognized by Pope John VIII,
who ordered the immediate release of Methodius from his monastic prison in order to place
him in 873 under Svatopluk’s protection. One year later (874), Louis the German himself was
forced to recognize Svatopluk’s independence through the peace of Forchheim. By that time,
the power of Svatopluk had extended into the upper Vistula Basin, over Bohemia, the lands
between the Saale and the Elbe rivers, as well as the northern and northeastern parts of the
Carpathian Basin. * The Czech prince Bořivoj, a member of the Přemyslid family which
would unify and rule Bohemia in the following century, is believed to have been baptized in
874 by Methodius in Moravia together with his wife Ludmila (St. Wenceslas’s
grandmother).”

On the failed attempt of creating a Bosnian nation, and the historical ramificiations of it:

”Bosnian Cyrillic” or the Bosancica is a term that was first coined by Ciro Truhelka who,
together with Benjamin Kallay, attempted to create a Bosnian nation the same way they
created the Albanian nation - with the only difference being that they failed. They succeeded
with Muslims though, as today we are bombarded by them that even people from Trebinje
(Herzegovinians) are Bosnians who speak Bosnian (instead of” Herzegovinian”), people from
Bihac (in Krajina and was never a part of an independent Bosnian rule until 1995) are
Bosnians, Muslims in Novi Pazar (Serbia) are speaking Bosnian and so on and so on.
Everything is Bosnia.”
Further on the state of ethnic stratifications in the Ottoman Empire:

“Turks were essentially the peasant class and confined to the easternmost part of the empire.
Obviously, a portion of the ruling class, mainly the lower administrative clerks, were of
Turkish origin, but the majority of the administrative functions were run by non-Turks and
even non-muslims. This means that law, tax and Janissary executive orders were all created
and drafted by men of Balkan origin and merely signed by the sultan. All modern scholars of
the Ottoman Empire (At least those who aren’t on Turkey’s immediate payroll) agree that
prior to the Auspicious Incident, the Ottomans have never defined or identified themselves as
“Turks”. Even Sultans tried to distance themselves from that identity. The only reason you
hear the Ottomans being referred to as “Turks” prior to the beginning of WW1 is because the
British and the French used it as an umbrella term to refer to all Muslim caliphates/khanates
around the Levant, and sometimes even erroneously referring to Arabs or Mamluks as Turks.
But not to digress, one just needs to read the most important texts about administrative
communication, or about which languages were spoken on the Sultan' court. Turkish was
almost never used, while Serb, Persian and Greek languages were always used, even Arabic
was more common before the Nationalist uprising. Turkey is a phantom country created by
British and the French, to guarantee a weakness in Anatolia so that Saudi Arabia may fully
reap the profits of oil exploitation.”

On Western revisionism in regards of who is responsible for the defeat of the Axis:

“In regards of it, Western historians, by default, further the "it's a team effort" fallacy, even
though they're aware of how minute their effort was when compared to that of the Soviet
Union. And to add things into proper perspective, the Allies weren't just facing Germany, it
was Germany, Hungary, Thailand, Romania, Bulgaria, Finland, Italy, Japan. Also, parts of
Yugoslavia. And the occupied countries. And the puppet nations. And the volunteers, and
further on, some 80% of these aforementioned Axis armies in Europe were stationed on the
Eastern Front. Matter of fact, it was the Soviet Union that fought alone during most of the
war, not Germany, and mostly because Britain and the USA have had no intentions of aiding
their ally, at least not until the very end of 1943, when it was already apparent that the Soviets
have broken the bulk of the Axis army, and were gunning for Berlin with alarming speed,
which brings us to the main reason the Americans have involved themselves directly in the
European theater, to prevent the Soviets from occupying all of Europe, and from seizing all
the German industry, which prior to the war in question, was heavily funded and furnished by
the USA. In short, the USA joined the European theater only for the purpose of preserving its
investments and profit, which were rather extensive at the time, and of course, to establish
itself as the sole power in the Western hemisphere. And yes, wars don’t revolve solely around
killcounts, but the Russians didn't just kill, imprison and defeat most of the Axis armies, but
they've also gained, "liberated" and taken most of the landmass in Europe, and at the fastest
rate as well. To pretend that this was a "joint" effort is peak revisionism. To add things into
perspective, the Russians were facing the brunt of the Axis’ army in Europe, an army made of
professional soldiers, elites and veterans of at least one wars, while their "Western Allies"
were largely facing reservists, conscripts and heavily under-supplied tank and infantry
regiments, and over-fatigued veterans of the Eastern Front, who were hastily transported to
the Western Front, and in relatively small numbers. Now, in regards of the statement which
Zhukov allegedly uttered decades ago (about the Lend-Lease), there is absolutely no evidence
to support that statement ever having been said. While in reality, on the basis of the
meticulously detailed logistical records, we find that the US Lend-Lease never amounted to
more than 4%-7% of Soviet military production, even at the absolute peak. The "Lend-Lease"
is the USA’s argument for showing up late to yet another war after profiteering from both
sides in the early stages.”

Further on the purported belief that the Slavs were a sheer monolith in terms of distribution of
Y-DNA, and that the haplogroups E1b and I2a1b weren’t present among the invading Slavs:

“There is nothing even remotely "native Balkan" about I2a1b-CTS10228, most specifically
its main Slavic subclade, Y3120. It is a very outdated theory based solely on modern
concentrations, and even that reasoning is flat-out wrong. Ancient DNA totally refutes such
nonsense, but even without it, it can be plainly seen that it has nothing to do with native
Balkan populations, so let’s start from those reasons first.
1. I2a1b-CTS10228 exhibits much higher diversity of clades in northern Slavic lands than it
does on the Balkans. Naturally, every haplogroup has more diversity in the lands from where
it came from, therefore it can't be native to the Balkan based on this alone. But there's much
more to it.
2. Older sister clade to I2a1b>L621>CTS10228 "Dinaric", "Isles" (L161.1), and its parent
clade, "Disles" (regular L621 upstream of CTS10228) are today mainly found in
northwestern Europe.
3. There has not been a single I2a1b-CTS10228, or any I2a1b for that matter, among ancient
Balkan samples so far, and there are many. In the Neolithic, we almost exclusively see G2a,
and toward the Bronze Age and during its course we see that R1b-Z2103, J2b2, and some
clades of E1b have taken predominance (Mathieson et al. 2017), which are today common
among Albanians. There were I2-M223 found in Mesolithic, yes, but it is a completely
different clade separated from I2a1b-M423>L621>CTS10228 by more than 20.000 years,
therefore irrelevant.
4. On the other hand I2a1b was the single most predominant haplogroup of northern
European hunter-gatherers, being found from the Baltic to Britain. Most of it was of the
I2a1b-L161.1 "Isles" variety, however, Scandinavia housed the greatest number of
undifferentiated I2a1b, and it is exactly there that we find the oldest, and as of now, the only
prehistoric I2a1b-CTS10228 sample, Motala12 from Sweden, 8000 years old (Mathieson et
al. 2017). From this as well it is more than clear that it couldn't have been a native Balkan
haplogroup, and that it’s likely some proxy in form of an East "Germanic" (actually
Germanicized natives of the north) tribe, like Goths or Bastarnae, who’ve brought it from the
northwestern direction to the proto-Slavic tribes.
5. There are already numerous findings of I2a1b-CTS10228 in medieval northern Slavic
lands, and matter of fact, they are more numerous than R1a so far. For example, the 10th
century sample Niemcza_13 from Poland belongs to that haplogroup, and so does the 12th
century sample Sungir6 from Russia. Not only that, but an 11th century sample of a Rurikid
Prince of Novgorod, Gleb Svyatoslavich, has been tested (sample VK542 from Margaryan et
al. 2019 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/703405v1), and it also turned out to be
I2a1b-Y3120, meaning that this haplogroup was present among Slavic royalty and nobility as
well.
6. Even if one wanted to utilize the simplest argument which utilizes solely concentration, it
should be recalled that in Polesie region I2a1b-Y3120 rises to over 20%, which is far from
insignificant, and that other northern Slavic lands boast it in important percentages as well.
Aside from that, the overwhelming majority of I2a1b-Din, probably nearly 100%, belongs
under the CTS10228, the complete entirety of which falls under Y3120 which dates back
only to 200BC. All men of this line, regardless of identification, descend from one man from
only 2200 years ago who had lived somewhere in northern Europe, thus far from the river
Danube. Furthermore, I2a1b-Y3120 and R1a were not the only haplogroups Slavs had. There
were certain clades of E1b-V13 that were distinctly Slavic (in opposition to native Balkan
E1b - we must remember that it is an old haplogroup with many old sub-branches spread
across whole Europe), and as of now there are no less than 5 ancient DNA Slavic samples
which have Y-DNA - which is, ironically, more than number of Early Slavs with R1a
unearthed so far.
Let us start with Yaroslav Osmomysl, a 12th century Russian nobleman who was the Prince
of Halych (now western Ukraine), who was an E1b-V13 bearer (Margaryan et al. 2019).
Then we have the following E1b-V13 bearers: a 13th century Wend from Usedom in
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, a Western Slav from Hrádek and Nisou in Northern Bohemia
(Vanek et al. 2015), a 7th century sample from Székkutas-Kápolnadülő, and two samples
from Karosc (K1/13 and K2/6) among Hungarian conquerors which are likely to be of Slavic
extraction. In short, I2a1b isn't native to the Balkans, and has arrived there in Late Antiquity
and the Early Middle Ages, same goes for most, or at least half of the E1b subclades among
the South Slavs. Also, the haplogroup I2a1b is present in rather substantial numbers and
percentages among Western and Eastern Slavs as well, which categorically refutes the theory
that it’s native to Southeastern Europe. The reason why Northern Slavs appear to be
genetically distinct from South Slavs is because they’ve mixed with Germanics and Balts, to
which Early Slavs are genetically closer than to Balkan populations of antiquity who were
very EEF-rich, therefore it is not as noticeable on Autosomal calculators as it is the case of
Southern Slavs, even though both groups of Slavs have continuously intermixed with their
neighbors.

On the matter of Basil Davidson’s summary of the nature of the Yugoslav Partisans:

“It was the nature of partisan resistance that operations against it must either eliminate it
altogether or leave it potentially stronger than before. This had been shown by the sequel to
each of the previous five offensives from which, one after another, the partisan brigades and
divisions had emerged stronger in experience and armament than they had been before, with
the backing of a population which had come to see no alternative to resistance but death,
imprisonment, or starvation. There could be no half-measures, the Germans left nothing
behind them but a trail of ruin. What in other circumstances might possibly have remained
the purely ideological war that reactionaries abroad said it was (and German propaganda did
their utmost to support them) became a war for national preservation. So clear was this that
no room was left for provincialism, Serbs and Croats and Slovenes, Macedonians, Bosnians,
Christian and Muslim, Orthodox and Catholic, sank their differences in the sheer desperation
of striving to remain alive. By the middle of 1943 partisan resistance to the Germans and
their allies had grown from the dimensions of a mere nuisance to those of a major factor in
the general situation. In many parts of occupied Europe, the enemy was suffering losses at the
hands of partisans that he could ill afford. Nowhere were these losses heavier than in
Yugoslavia. The partisan army had long since grown into a regular fighting formation
comparable to the armies of other small States, and infinitely superior to most of them, and
especially to the pre-war Jugoslav army, in tactical skill, fieldcraft, leadership, fighting spirit
and fire-power.”

On the origin and nature of the Upper Paleolithic & Nordid Albanians, who are, on the basis
of anthropological studies, albanized Serbs:
“Coon makes it rather clear that in Albania, the UP traits are concentrated in only two tribes
of Ghegeria. Attempts to intercorrelate metrical and morphological characters with each other
and with pigmentation reveal the presence of the following types in Ghegnia...
(1) A tall, large-headed, brachycephalic, wide-faced type, with intermediate pigmentation,
and an especial tendency toward rufosity. This is the Borreby-like type prevalent in
Montenegro, in Albania it is almost wholly confined to the tribe of Malsia ë Madhë, and
within that tribe is concentrated in the bairak of Gruda (Chaper XII Section 13, Albania and
the Dinaric Race). That UP element has lived in Northern Montenegro for an indefinite
amount of time, from there it was forced into Old Montenegro by the Ottomans, and from
there it spilled over a tiny bit into the northernmost regions of Ghegeria. Based on that fact
alone, the presence of UP Montenegrins is Serb in origin. And unlike in Coon's era, we know
that the origin of the Upper Paleolithic element is in Eastern Serbia, and that it's been residing
in Montenegro since very recent times. Old Montenegro was called Katunska Nahija at the
time of Ivan-beg Crnojevic in the 15th century, when it was the southernmost region of the
realm, which was actually centered in Northern Montenegro (the Brda region, also, Katun =
cottage, nahija = district, it was only populated seasonally & sparsely up until the 16th
century). In short, UP Albanians are Ottoman-era Serb intruders from the territories of Old
Montenegro, and they’ve spilled out in Northern Albania as Serbs and were eventually, later
Albanized. In regards of purported cultural similarities, it should be noted that the blood-feud,
patriarchy and the honour-killings are common to all mountain-dwelling, pastoral people who
disdain subsistence agriculture, and the pre-Christian Slavs as well. Yo'av Karny' book
"Highlanders" makes that point rather potently.
In that same sense any Nordicism in Albania is attributable to Slavic (Serb) influence:
Entirely outside of Albania, in Montenegro and the Kossovo country, are Peia, Podrima, and
a number of clans in the neighborhood of Mitrovitza. South of the Drin are Zadrima,
immediately southeast of Shkodra, Puka, Mirdita, and Luma, part of which is Serbian-
speaking, south of this band are Mati, the tribe of King Zog, and Dibra, which occupies the
slopes on either side of the Black Drin.
Attempts to intercorrelate metrical and morphological characters with each other and with
pigmentation reveal the presence of the following types in Ghegnia:
A blond, brachycephalic, convex-nosed Noric, of standard type. It is most common in
Zadrima, and a few light brown-haired Nordics, centered in Luma. Nordic accretions produce
a Noric, Borreby-like accretions an Old Montenegrin. (Chaper XII Section 13, Albania and
the Dinaric Race) Further on, Nordids in Albania are very common in Zadrima, which is in
northwestern Albania.This area was, for a time, extensively settled by Serbs and other Slavs
in the early 7th century. This is not surprising because the name Zadrima is a Slavic word,
meaning "behind the Drim". Za is a shortened form of iza, which means behind. The letter 'a'
is a Slavic neuter posessive suffix. Wendish Serb tribes used a number of variations based on
the word za - behind when they settled in Bosnia, Hercegovina & Dalmatia in the same
period as they've settled North Albania, for example: the medieval Serb state of Zahumlje.
The movement of the South Slavs towards Albania took them to the Gore region of
Northwestern Albania (Carleton Stevens Coon Races of Europe, Chapter VI, section 7, The
Slavs). Nordids in Albania are the most common in Luma, also - a region which was
specifically settled by Wendish Serbs in the early 7th century: “The once important Serbian
influence in Albania has left few vestiges, other than Slavic place names, and the presence of
a few islands of Muslim Serb speakers in the mountains, as in the Gora district of Luma".
(Carleton Stevens Coon Races of Europe, Chapter XII, section 12) The Illyrians of Central &
Northern Albania, called Illyris in ancient times, were completely massacred by the Romans
in 168 BC for siding with Macedonia:
“Roman treatment of Illyrians south of the Drin had reached a brutal climax following the
victory over Macedonia in 168 BC. In attacks by the Roman army on Macedonian allies in
northern Epirus and Illyris, 70 communities were destroyed, 150 000 of the population
enslaved and the countryside devastated.”
A century & a half later, Strabo records:
"...at the present time desolation prevails in most parts, while in the areas that are still
inhabited, they survive only in the villages and among the ruins". John Wilkes, The Illyrians,
Chapter: Prehistoric Illyrians, Page: 208

On the other hand, the fact that these Nordic characteristics are found in high frequency only
in parts of Albania known to have been settled by Slavs & Serbs in the early 7th century -
confirms beyond doubt that the secondary characteristics of Nordic morphology in living
Albanians of today are largely of unmixed Serb/Slavic origin.”

On the myths and misinformation that plague Skanderbeg:

“Skanderbeg' fame survived in Christian Europe for centuries, while it largely faded in
Islamized Albania. It was only in the 19th century, in the period of Albanian National
Revival, that Skanderbeg was rediscovered in the Albanian speaking world and raised to the
level of national myth. Although Skanderbeg had already been used in the construction of the
Albanian national code, especially in communities of Arbėresh, it was only in the final years
of the 19th century with the publication of the work of Naim Frasheri"Istori'e Skenderbeut"in
1898 that his figure assumed a new dimension.
Albanian nationalists needed an episode from medieval history for the center of the Albanian
nationalistic mythology and they chose Skanderbeg, in the absence of the medieval kingdom
or empire. The figure of Skanderbeg was subjected to Albanisation, and he was presented as
a national hero. Later books and periodicals continued this theme, and nationalist writers
transformed history into myth. There was significant effort of the Albanian historiography to
adapt the facts about Skanderbeg to meet the requests of the contemporary ideology.
Although the Myth of Skanderbeg had little to do with the reality it was incorporated in
works about history of Albania.
Authors borrowing from the national epics and nationalisms of Greeks, Croats and Serbs of
Montenegro (like those of Gjergj Fishta and his Lahuta e Malcís) contributed to the creation
of Skanderbeg as the Albanian national hero. The religious aspect of Skanderbeg' struggle
against Muslims was minimized by Albanian nationalists because it could divide Albanians
and undermine their unity, as Albanians are both Muslims and Christians. Because of the
insufficient primary sources, it is difficult to pin down the "hero of the Albanian nation"
status of Skanderbeg. Further on, he wasn't even fully Albanian, he was half Serb. All his
siblings bore Slavic name, they married Slavs, matter of fact, he even had a Serb as a
secretary that would write letters in Serbian. He was an Orthodox, turned Bektashi, turned
Muslim, turned Catholic, turned Uniat (Orthodox under the purview of the Vatican).”

On the purported belief that the Ottoman Empire had easily conquered Medieval and modern
Serb states:

“The Serbs have defeated the Ottoman Turks at Prussa, Nicaea, Nicomedia, Dubravnica
(1381), Plocnik, Tripolje, Nish, Kunovica, Krusevac, Leskovac and Bileca. In more recent
times, the Turks were also defeat at Krusi, Kolasini, Vucji Do, Fundina, Velika, Murino,
Vranje, Misar, Deligrad, Ivankovac, Kumanovo, Prilep, Odrin, Monastir, Sumatovac, Drlupa,
Belgrade again (1806), Loznica and Ljubic.”

On the purported belief that South Slavs are genetically divergent from other Slavs:

“According to the 2013 autosomal IBD survey "of recent genealogical ancestry over the past
3,000 years at a continental scale", the speakers of Serbo-Croatian language share a very high
number of common ancestors dated to the migration period approximately 1,500 years ago
with Poland and Romania-Bulgaria cluster among others in Eastern Europe. It is concluded to
be caused by the Slavic expansion, which was a vast population that expanded over a large
geographic area, and that the aforementioned expansion is "highly coincident with the
modern distribution of Slavic languages". According to Kushniarevich et al. 2015, the
Hellenthal et al. 2014 IBD analysis also found "multi-directional admixture events among
East Europeans (both Slavic and non-Slavic), dated to around 1,000–1,600 YBP" which
coincides with "the proposed time-frame for the Slavic expansion". The Slavic influence is
"dated to 500-900 CE or a bit later with over 40-50% among Bulgarians, Romanians, and
Hungarians". The 2015 IBD analysis found that the South Slavs have lower proximity to
Greeks than with East and West Slavs and that there's an "even patterns of IBD sharing
among East-West Slavs–'inter-Slavic' populations (Hungarians, Romanians and Gagauz)–and
South Slavs, across an area of assumed historic movements of people including Slavs". The
peak of shared IBD segments between South and East-West Slavs suggests a shared "Early
Slavic ancestry". According to a recent admixture analysis of Western Balkan, the South
Slavs show a genetic uniformity. The modeled ancestral genetic component of Balto-Slavs
among South Slavs was between 55-70%. The 2006 Y-DNA study results "suggest that the
Slavic expansion started from the territory of present-day Ukraine, thus supporting the
hypothesis that places the earliest known homeland of Slavs in the basin of the middle
Dnieper". According to most Y-DNA studies, the distribution, variance and frequency of the
Y-DNA haplogroups R1a and I2 and their subclades R-M558, R-M458 and I-CTS10228
among South Slavs are in correlation with the spreading of Slavic languages during the
medieval Slavic expansion from Eastern Europe, most probably from the territory of present
day Ukraine and Southeastern Poland.

On the purported belief that Kosovo wasn’t predominately inhabited by Serbs during most of
Medieval and Modern history:

“Kosovo was absorbed into the Nemanjic Serbian state in the late 12th and early 13th
centuries, and was part of the Serbian Empire from 1346 to 1402. In 1389, the Battle of
Kosovo occurred, which ended in a stalemate (both rulers, Murad I and Lazar Hrebeljanović,
were killed). During the rule of the Nemanjić dynasty (c. 1160–1355), many Serbian
Orthodox churches and monasteries were built throughout Serbian territory. From the mid-
13th century to the end of the century, the Nemanjić rulers had their main residences in
Kosovo. Large estates were given to the monasteries in Western Kosovo (Metohija). The
most prominent churches in Kosovo – the Patriarchate at Peć, the church at Gračanica and the
monastery at Visoki Dečani near Dečani – were all founded during this period. Kosovo was
economically important, as the modern Kosovo capital Priština was a major trading centre on
routes leading to ports on the Adriatic Sea. Also, mining was an important industry in Novo
Brdo and Janjevo which had its communities of émigré Saxon miners and Ragusan
merchants. In 1450 the mines of Novo Brdo were producing about 6,000 kg of silver per
year. The ethnic composition of Kosovo's population during this period included Serbs,
Albanians, and Vlachs along with a token number of Greeks, Croats, Armenians, Saxons, and
Bulgarians, according to Serbian monastic charters or chrysobulls. A majority of the names
given in the charters are overwhelmingly Slavic/Serb rather than Albanian. This has been
understood as proof of an overwhelming Serbian majority. This claim is supported by a
number of cadastral tax-censuses, most notably the Turkish cadastral tax-census (defter) of
1455 which took into account religion and language and found an overwhelming Serb
majority.

The Ottoman cadastral tax census (defter) of 1455 in the Branković lands (covering most of
present-day Kosovo) recorded:
480 villages,
13,693 adult males,
12,985 dwellings,
14,087 household heads (480 widows and 13,607 adult males).
Yugoslav and Serbian scholars have researched the defter, concluding that:
13,000 Serb dwellings present in all 480 villages and towns
75 Vlach dwellings in 34 villages
46 Albanian dwellings in 23 villages
17 Bulgarian dwellings in 10 villages
5 Greek dwellings in Lauša, Vučitrn
1 Jewish dwelling in Vučitrn
1 Croat dwelling
Out of all names mentioned in this census, conducted by the Ottomans in 1455, covering
areas of most of present-day Kosovo, 95.88% of all names were of Serbian origin, 1.90% of
Roman origin, 1.56% of uncertain origin, 0.26% of Albanian origin, 0.25% of Greek origin,
etc.

The defter of 1487 in the Branković lands recorded:

Vučitrn district:
16,729 Christian households (412 in Pristina and Vučitrn)
117 Muslim households (94 in Pristina and 83 in rural areas)

Peć District:
Peć (town)
121 Christian households
33 Muslim households
Suho Grlo and Metohija:
131 Christian households, of which 52% in Suho Grlo were Serbian

Donja Klina - 50% Serbian

Deçan - 64% Serbian
Rural areas:
6,124 Christian households (99%)
55 Muslim households (1%)

The defters of 1520–1535

Vučitrn: 19,614 Christian households
700 Muslim households (3.5%)
1582–83 defter of the Sanjak of Scutari
The 1582–83 defter of the Sanjak of Scutari recorded the Peć nahiya as having 235 villages
of which some 30 have Albanian families besides the majorital Orthodox Serbs. The Altun-li
nahiya had 41 villages with a Serb majority and Albanian minority
Ottoman defter from 1591:
Prizren – Serbian majority, significant Albanian minority
Gora – Serbian.
Opolje – Albanian Muslim.
Significant clusters of Albanian populations lived in Kosovo especially in the west and centre
before and after the Habsburg invasion of 1689–1690, while in Eastern Kosovo they were a
small minority. Due to the Ottoman-Habsburg wars and their aftermath, some Albanians from
contemporary northern Albania and Western Kosovo settled within the wider Kosovo area in
the second half of the 18th century, at times instigated by Ottoman authorities.
Successive persecutions of Serbs by the Ottomans in the southern Balkans resulted in
migrations to areas under the control of the Habsburg Monarchy, in particular during the
Great Turkish War of 1683–1699. During that war between the Ottomans and the Habsburgs,
it led to the flight of a substantial numbers of Serbs and Albanians who had sided with the
Austrians, from within and outside Kosovo, to Austrian held Vojvodina and the Military
Frontier – Patriarch Arsenije III, one of the refugees, referred to 30,000 or 40,000 souls, but a
much later monastic source referred to 37,000 families. Serbian historians have used this
second source to talk of a Great Migration of Serbs. Wars in 1717–1738 led to a second
exodus of refugees (both Serbian and Albanian) from inside and outside Kosovo, together
with reprisals and the enslavement and deportation of a number of Serbs and Albanians by
the victorious Ottomans, of whom many were Albanian converts.
During the Great Austro-Turkish War, Albanian Catholic leaders Pjetër Bogdani and Toma
Raspasani rallied Kosovo Albanian Catholics and Muslims to the pro-Austrian cause. After
the war, when Kosovo did not end up part of the Habsburg empire, harsh reprisals followed.
Large numbers of Catholics and Serbs fled north where many "died, some of hunger, others
of disease" around Budapest. After the flight of Serbs, the İpek Detachment forced Catholic
Albanians in the north to move to the now depopulated plains of southern Serbia, and forced
them to convert to Islam there. 19th century data about the population of Kosovo tend to be
rather conflicting, giving sometimes numerical superiority to the Serbs and sometimes to the
Albanians. From the 19th century and onward, the population of Albanians grew, while the
population of Serb faced a slow, yet irreversible decline.
An Austrian statistic published in 1899 estimated: 182,650 Albanians (47.88%) and 166,700
Serbs (43.7%)”

On the matters of Western propaganda and its predatory disregard for historicism in its
assessments of Southeast European history:

“When two books appeared - Rudolf Bicanic's The Economic Background of the Croatian
Question (1938), which was introduced by the leader of the Croatian Peasant Party dr. Vlatko
Macek, and The Black Lamb and the Grey Falcon (Macmillan, London, 1941)l, probably
nobody supposed that those books, in spite of their ideological orientation, would for some
sixty years figure as inevitable reading of the historians and politicians focusing on the
Balkans. The impact of these books not only on these two professions, but also on many
journalists and "instant analysts", has been anything but negligible. Now, almost at the very
end of the century, we are once again helpless witnesses of the promotion of a book that has
bound its career with a flourishing political trend. Its function is that of the advance guard
and subsequent legitimation of new politics in relation to the Balkans.
How was Noel Malcolm's book received by American and British historians?
Historians, but also other scholars or analysts, responded to Noel Malcolm's book soon after
its appearance, the way they responded to the book by Miranda Vickers dealing with the
same theme published some time before Malcolm's. Such a prompt response is to be
attributed to the fact that the publication of these two books coincided with the beginning of
repeated terrorist actions by the separatists against the civilian population and armed
confrontations of the KLA with the police throughout the area of Kosovo and Metohija. The
available critical reviews and polemics inspired by Malcolm's work suggests that the majority
of the authors voiced well grounded objections to Malcolm's book, whereas only a minority
embraced it unreservedly. It also seems that the authors giving priority to the book by
Miranda Vickers were more numerous. This finding perhaps contrasts with the reception of
Malcolm's book by some political circles. Among the critical points on which the greater part
of the reviewers agree is that the most frequent objections are to Malcolm's disregard for Serb
archival sources, the Serb scholarship, to his insufficient knowledge of recent history, his
misunderstanding of myths in Serb history, his deficient criticism of Albanian myths and
Albanian scholarship, as well as to his open political (pro-Albanian) choice in relation to the
solution of the Kosovo issue today.
A Summary of Critical Approaches
The reviews of Malcolm's book, affirmative and negative alike, have been inspired both by
his approach to historical topics and the messages he formulates in his introductory and
concluding discussions. Very often, the authors have reviewed Malcolm's book along with
that by Miranda Vickers, and in a few cases with that by Richard Holbrooke (To End the
War). The first review, predominantly affirmative, was written by Oxford University
professor Richard Crampton. It should be added that Crampton has in a way contributed to
the promotion of Malcolm's "Kosovo Cycle". Namely, his and Robert Evans's influence was
responsible for Malcolm's becoming a visiting professor at the Brasenose College of the
University of Oxford teaching on "The Great Migration of 1690". They were also
instrumental in obtaining for him, in 1995/1996, a grant from that university - its St Antony
College - enabling him to write his history of Kosovo. The reading of Crampton's review
gives the impression that this distinguished professor was too easily taken in by Malcolm's
impressive apparatus criticus, by his seemingly skilful use of sources, by his "passionate"
delving into such problems as the Kosovo Battle, the Great Migration, etc. Judging by his
latest synthetical monograph, it is obvious that Crampton is not well versed in the subject
matter in question. In short, Malcolm's colleague accepts his arguments against the myths
dealing with the Kosovo Battle, the Great Migration, his advocacy of the thesis propounding
the Illyrian origin of the Albanians, his challenging of the historical and ethnological proofs
pertaining to the Arnauts, etc. So, Crampton enthusiastically writes: "The greatest strength of
this book, however, is not the range of its sources, but the skill with which they have been
used." Crampton illustrates his claim by referring to "brilliant" passages discussing the
"Illyrian origin" of the Albanians and a "brilliant passage proving that Kosovo has never
legitimately entered into the composition of the Serbian state."
Another British historian, Stevan K. Pavlowitch, professor of Balkan history at the University
of Southampton, penned an acute, rather ironical judgement on he way in which Malcolm
uses his sources: "As one who has studied Balkan history for 40 years and taught it for 30, I
do not think that Malcolm's book is a profound, as opposed to an impressive work of
scholarship. The very name of Kosovo is imprecise. The site of the Battle of 1389 and the
Ottoman province are not the same as the 1945 Yugoslav province to which we refer today.
For Malcolm to say that we can read a Kosovan history to ancient times is cheating. Kosovo.
A Short History is often just Ottoman history or Albanian history. (…) Malcolm compounds
popular nineteenth-century simplifications of the kind once widespread in Europe into an
authorized version that he attributes to 'Serbian historians' and then proceeds to knock it
down with the help of… twentieth-century Serb historians (using them selectively and out of
context, we might add). Malcolm wants to demonstrate that the twentieth-century Serbian,
Montenegrin, and Yugoslavian politics from 1912 onward are the core of the Kosovo
problem (…) I happen to agree, but it should have been drawn from the evidence, not an
assumption made first and then bolstered with evidence (that fit him - M. B.)."
Not long after the positive, political-professional review by Richard Crampton, another
expert in Eastern and Middle Europe had his review of Malcolm's book published, Istvan
Deak, professor at the Columbia University (New York). This rather long review is
moderately affirmative, but it demonstrates Deak's poor knowledge of the subject matter. Due
to his rare use of quotations, one can tell Deak's own prejudices from Malcolm's claims only
with the help of Malcolm's book. Nevertheless, Deak warns that it is not worthwhile to seek
the Albanian ethno-genesis by tracing the concept "Albanian" since that very people did not
use that name but the appellation "Shqiptar". "Unfortunately, an enormous quantity of ink
and blood is being spilled over this nonsensical question." Deak gives priority to Vickers,
who accepts the results of Serbian historiography related to the Great Migration. He considers
that procedure more just ("and, truly, it is more likely").
Among the academic historians, perhaps the sharpest criticism of Malcolm's book came from
Professor Thomas Emerat (Gustavus Adolphus College). Paraphrazing the opinion of one of
his students, Emerat agrees with him that Malcolm's is a history "with an attitude", a thing
which we here call writing "with a preset thesis". Revealing Malcolm's deceits concerning his
precedence in exposing Serb myths, Emerat immediately and without beating around the
bush, pours out precisely the facts offered by the history of Serb critical historiography, in
particular those supplied by the work of Ilarion Ruvarac and his followers. Emeret finds that
Malcolm is not aware that myth exists in itself, that it has its duration and that it also
represents a reality, as well as that challenging myth is the craziest enterprize one can
undertake. By his book Malcolm has demonstrated the arrogance to do so. But that is not the
only proof of his arrogance. As a writer and scholar, Emerat ironically remarks that Malcolm,
only four years after he had made a bold step into the dark of Balkan politics and history with
his short history of Bosnia, "perhaps gives hope to all historians and other scholars who labor
endless years in producing definitive studies of their particular regions of the field".
Identifying the central targets of Malcolm's book (the myth of Kosovo and Metohija as the
cradle of Serb state consciousness, the Kosovo Battle, the Great Migration), Emerat
demonstrates the absurdity of Malcolm's efforts. For instance, Emerat is of the opinion that
the most important things are historical evidence and present times - what the Serbs consider
as their cradle and not how that conviction came about. Or, Emerat goes on to say, it is quite
wrong to account for the myth of the Kosovo Battle by nineteenth century Serb national
ideology. That myth, Emerat reminds, existed before the time of Vuk Karadzic, who wrote
down the popular epics. The third of the above-mentioned myths cannot be knocked down by
the sheer mass of the sources offered by the author.
However, Emerat makes his most serious objection to Malcolm in the last sentence of the
review, before turning to the book by Miranda Vickers: "Once he does bring us to the
twentieth century, Malcolm chronicles as closely as he can the discrimination, harassment
and outright terror directed at Albanians by Serbs. One senses, however, that he is reluctant to
examine and document more carefully and critically the Albanians' own serious acts against
the Serbs in Kosovo both in this century and during the last decades of Ottoman rule there."
This passage hits precisely Malcolm's preset thesis - that everything began in 1912.
Tim Judah, in a long review published in the New York Review of Books (May 14 1998),
challenged Malcolm's distortion of the historical evidence related to the Great Migration.
Malcolm does that by using one-sided sources, Judah says, asking the author why Serb
archives are missing from his listing and why only a meagre selection of Serb works is
included. He had his review reprinted in The Economist. In his reviews published in the
British press, Misha Glenny also criticizes Malcolm for the evident absence of Serb archival
sources in his book. Glenny is the author of a study dealing with the disintegration of
Yugoslavia.
On the matter where Malcolm is the most sensitive to criticism and where did he respond
vehemently:
“Two kinds of objections were most upsetting to Malcolm. In the first place, those were the
objections underlining that he had relied on almost no selection from Serb literature and
sources as well as that he had not included a single Serb specialist among his consultants, as
opposed to the abounding Albanian consultants listed.
To the criticism of those inattentive critics who thought that he had relied more on Albanian
than on Serb historians he answered by flourishing his massive list of literature, which really
includes a lot of shorter or longer contributions by Serb historians. He added, as a particular
support to his argument, that those works were supplied by his Albanian friends! In a similar
way, he almost succeeded in convincing his critics that he had nothing whatsoever to seek for
in Serb secular or church archives because even Serb historians relied on the evidence to be
found in Turkey, Austria, Venice, the Vatican, Dubrovnik or Paris. However, in truth, he
tried, except once, to ignore his duty and explain why he didn't find it fitting to use those
archives in his discussion of the nineteenth and twentieth century history. This was noticed
by professor Christian A. Nielsen (Columbia University) during the polemic between
professor Emerat and Malcolm. Pressed by this perceptive remark, Malcolm answers to
Nielsen: "The direct knowledge of Serbian archival sources is certainly a deficiency in my
work but I think the deficiency is nevertheless a minor one, given chronological range of the
book." Only a few passages following this sentence Malcolm admits - this is the only case we
have found - that his book, discussing the period 1912-1915 and 1918-1941, does not use
first-class sources, though they are available in Serb archives. Yet, in order to justify himself
and confuse his critics, he adds that the period in question is, after all, chronologically the
shortest one and that, consequently, "the deficiency is… a minor one". He says that he
referred to such outstanding Albanian specialists as Liman Rushiti and Hakif Bajrami who
had carefully examined those sources. That is how the thesis that Kosovo did not become a
legitimate component of the Serbian state in 1912 and that 1912 marks the beginning of a de
facto colonial rule became acceptable for Noel Malcolm. The other point in the critical
reviews of Malcolm's books which particularly disturbed him is their challenging his
contribution to the "dismantling" of the myth concerning the Great Migration of the Serbs
under Patriarch Arsenije Carnojevic in 1690. In his answer to the review by Aleksa Djilas
published in Foreign Affairs, Malcolm remains self-confident, thereby supplying additional
arguments against his own ignorance and disdain for his scholarly public. He says:
"Djilas complains bitterly of my 'previous eagerness' to dismantle the myths surrounding the
so-called 'Great Migrations' of the Serbs in 1690. Unable to challenge the historical truth of
my findings, which differ from the traditional Serb nationalist account, Djilas denigrates my
motives instead." As an expert in the media, and taking advantage of the pages of this
prestigious periodical, Malcolm, criticizing Djilas's reception of Tim Judah's position, repeats
that this journalist used the hyperbole with the "Mayflower" in order to show that Malcolm's
points, though essentially different from his own, were convincing. In his long and polemical
reply to the review by Thomas Emerat who had objected to his conclusions in relation to the
Great Migration, Malcolm only adds to the arguments against himself. He did not like the
qualification that his interpretation was quite unconvincing, that he uses an insufficient
number of sources to be able to challenge the position advocated for decades by Serb
historians. Malcolm is again showing off with quotations and his findings in French, Vatican
and Viennese archives. He is again bragging that he had carefully studied each of his sources,
as well as that his account is based on a far greater number of sources than the Serb
historiography referred to by Emerat. He challenges the finding of many a Serb historian that
37,000 families from Kosovo and Metohija migrated during the Great Migration. In general,
in answering the scholars who are established historians, and with whose work he seems to be
familiar, Malcolm, aware that the issues in question belong to their field of study, defends
himself in a reserved manner, resorting to tactical manoeuvres. In his polemic with scholars,
publicists or professionals in political analytics, he takes a haughtier attitude, resorting even
to personal insults and avoiding to provide precise answers to the critical points in question.
This approach marked his polemic with Aleksa Djilas in Foreign Affairs, with George
Kenney in The Nation. Both Kenney and Djilas mentioned a host of facts pertaining to his
political career or political background, the papers he had contributed to, and the like.”

A summary of the events that led to the planned and violent dissolution of Yugoslavia:

“A year before the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, on Nov. 5, 1990,
the U.S. Congress passed the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Law 101-513. This
bill was a signed death warrant. One provision in particular was so lethal that even a CIA
report described three weeks later in the Nov. 27, 1990, New York Times predicted it would
lead to a bloody civil war.
A section of Law 101-513 suddenly and without previous warning cut off all aid, trade,
credits and loans from the U.S. to Yugoslavia within six months. It also ordered separate
elections in each of the six republics that make up Yugoslavia, requiring State Department
approval of election procedures and results before aid to the separate republics would be
resumed. The legislation further required U.S. personnel in all international financial
institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to enforce this cut-
off policy for all credits and loans. There was one final provision. Only forces that the U.S.
State Department defined as "democratic forces" would receive funding. This meant an influx
of funds to small right-wing nationalist parties in a currently and temporarily financially
strangled region suddenly thrown into crisis by the overall funding cut-off. The impact was,
as expected, devastating. This law threw the Yugoslav federal government into crisis. It was
unable to pay the enormous interest on its foreign debt or even to arrange the purchase of raw
materials for industry. Credit collapsed and recriminations broke out on all sides.
At the time there was no civil war. No republic had seceded. The U.S. was not engaged in a
public dispute with Yugoslavia. The region was not even in the news. World attention was
focused on the international coalition the Bush administration was assembling to destroy Iraq
—a war that reshaped the Middle East at a cost of half a million Iraqi lives. What was behind
the sweeping legislation directed at Yugoslavia, especially when U.S. policy makers
themselves predicted that the sudden unraveling of the region would lead to civil war?
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. big business was embarking on an aggressive
march to reshape all of Europe. Nonaligned socialist Yugoslavia was no longer allowed to
live in an envisioned monolithic capitalist Europe. A strong, united Europe was hardly
desirable. Washington policy makers considered both to be relics of the Cold War.
Control of the purse strings:
This one piece of legislation—Law 101-513—demonstrates the U.S. government’s enormous
power. It was one part of annual legislation that defines in detail policies to be pursued in
every region of the globe. The Foreign Operations Act implements U.S. corporate control
through major funding to international financial institutions such as the Inter-American
Development Bank, Asian Development Fund, the African Development Fund, and through
direct assistance to individual countries. The deadly restrictions on Yugoslavia took a mere
23 lines. Compare this to the more than nine pages that detail sanctions to be imposed on
Iraq. As of January 1995, the U.S.-UN sanctions on Iraq had killed more than half a million
children. This projection is from Thomas Ekfal, the United Nations Children’s Fund
representative in Baghdad. (New York Newsday, Dec. 19, 1994)
The 1991 foreign appropriations law also prescribed various forms of economic strangulation
for several other countries deemed enemies, including Angola, Cambodia, Cuba, Iran, Iraq,
Libya, Syria, Korea (DPRK) and Vietnam. On the other hand, countries moving hastily
toward a capitalist market economy in 1990, such as Poland, were to receive special funding.
In all the expressions of concern and sympathy for refugees and displaced people in countries
all over the globe, but especially in the former Yugoslavia, no U.S. official ever mentions the
terrible suffering caused by U.S. economic strangulation. Yugoslavia had become utterly
dependent on loans from Western banks. The increasingly onerous conditions had dislocated
the economy. A year earlier, the price of continued U.S. loans and credits was a brutal
austerity program that devalued the currency, froze wages, cut subsidies, closed many state
industries deemed unprofitable for capitalist investors and increased unemployment to 20
percent. The result was strikes, walkouts, a sharp increase in political and economic tension,
and, above all, an upsurge in national antagonisms on all sides. Once the U.S. acted so
decisively toward Yugoslavia in 1990, the European powers were hardly willing to be
bystanders to the enforced break-up of a country that stood as a natural barrier to their
expansion into the rest of Europe. The U.S. Foreign Appropriations Bill sent a clear message
to the European powers that Yugoslavia and the whole Balkan region of Europe were again
up for grabs. On their own they might never have dared to act. Now they dared not be out of
the action.”
On the purpose of the Serb military during NATO’ bombing of Yugoslavia:

“The Serbian air and ground defenses weren’t tasked with waging an all-out war with NATO,
but to face and stave off against a massive aerial campaign involving hundreds of planes
flying tens of thousands of sorties, and to mitigate their losses as much as possible, while not
losing any ground in the process of doing so. Matter of fact, the Serbs have lost less than 20
AFVs and about a company's worth of men throughout all of it while continuing ground
operations and even sporadic helicopter flights. Serbian air defenses in 1999 did exactly what
they were supposed to do. They kept their own ground forces safe and capable of continuing
operations, even in the face of overwhelming enemy air superiority. They practically made a
mockery of NATOs attempts to stop Serbian ground operations through airpower. Shooting
down planes (and everyone always forgets the 20+ UAVs the Serbs also shot down) is a
secondary task compared to that - there's a reason it's called air defense after all. One last
thing, concerning the stealth bomber trivia, the non-radar Neva is simply a Neva that has the
radar shut of and uses the backup command-guidance mode. That's something just about any
PACT/Redfor radar SAM system ought to be capable of by default.”

On the matter of the cultural, religious and linguistic unity of the Antes and the Sclavenes:

“Procopius described the Sclaveni and Antes as two barbarian peoples with the same
institutions and customs since ancient times, while Pseudo-Maurice called them numerous
people, who did not allow enslavement and conquest, and resistant to hardship, bearing all
weathers. They were portrayed by Procopius as unusually tall and strong, of dark skin and
"reddish" hair (neither blond nor black), leading a primitive life, Procopius also said they
were henotheistic, believing in the god of lightning (Perun), the ruler of all, to whom they
sacrificed cattle.”

On the death of Yugoslavia, and the sheer pragmatism behind it:

“On March 24th, 1999, NATO launched its 78-day round the clock aerial assault on the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia without the approval of the United Nations Security Council.
Over a thousand NATO warplanes delivered over 2,000 airstrikes in nearly 40,000 sorties,
dropping over 20,000 bombs over the former Yugoslavia, killing thousands of civilian men,
women, and children, as well as upwards of a thousand Yugoslav soldiers and police. NATO
employed weapons considered criminal by international law such as depleted uranium and
cluster bombs. The popular narrative is that is that the Western powers dropped these bombs
out of humanitarian concern, but this claim falls apart once the distorted lens of Western
saviourism is dropped and actual facts are presented. In truth, NATO intervention in
Yugoslavia was predicated on the imperialist, colonialist economic and ideological interests
of the NATO states, masquerading for the public as a humanitarian effort, that in fact served
to dismantle the last remnant of socialism in Europe and recolonize the Balkans. This
becomes apparent when the economic interests and actions of the NATO bloc in the decades
leading up the breakup are analyzed, when what actually occurred during the intervention is
further explored, and when the reality of life in the former Yugoslavia in the aftermath of the
‘humanitarian’ intervention is more closely examined. It becomes clear that the most
suffering endured by the Yugoslav people since Nazi occupation was the result of the actions
of NATO with the United States at its helm.
As the Ottoman Empire was all but defeated by the Greek, Serb and Bulgarian revolutions in
the 1800s, the other empires set their eyes on Turkish possessions in the Balkan peninsula.
The Slavs of the Balkans struggled for independence, aided by the Russian Empire. In
response, the Western powers attempted to prop up the Ottomans to circumvent the growing
Russian sphere of influence. Eventually the Great Powers called the Congress of Berlin to
redivide the Balkans amongst themselves. Leon Trotsky wrote of this process: “The states
that today occupy the Balkan Peninsula were manufactured by European diplomacy around
the table at the Congress of Berlin in 1879. There it was that all the measures were taken to
convert the national diversity of the Balkans into a regular melee of petty states. None of
them was to develop beyond a certain limit, each separately was entangled in diplomatic and
dynastic bonds and counterposed to all the rest, and, finally, the whole lot were condemned to
helplessness in relation to the Great Powers of Europe and their continual intrigues and
machinations.
Borders were strategically drawn across artificial ethnographic lines in a process that came to
be known as ‘Balkanization’. The newly independent Bulgaria had its interests in Macedonia,
which was still Turkish, whereas Serbia’s interests laid within Austro-Hungarian borders, and
Romania’s to the north in Russia and Hungary. Therefore, Pan-Slavism was no longer a
viable uniting force within the Balkans against empire. Nonetheless, leaving the peninsula in
this semi-liberated state could merely delay the inevitable and eventually war would break
out in the First and Second Balkan Wars, followed by the First World War. In the wake of
these wars the first Yugoslavia would finally be born. It would last until World War II, when
fascist occupation once again divided the Balkans. Many regions were annexed by the Axis
empires outright, while Croatia was expanded and transformed into a Nazi puppet state. The
Yugoslav people once again rallied behind the banner of Pan-Slavism and the dream of the
re-establishment of a multiethnic state – this time led by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia,
aiming to expel fascism and establish a socialist Yugoslavia. In 1945, the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia was built around six socialist republics and two autonomous
provinces in Serbia. The right to self-determination of all nations was guaranteed. The state
provided education, employment, healthcare and housing, and most importantly, ethnic
tensions ran at an all time low as nationalism was stamped out in favour of ‘brotherhood and
unity’ between nations. Unlike the Eastern Bloc countries, Tito’s Yugoslavia took a more
open approach to foreign policy and established relations with the West and the capitalist
bloc (at the expense of their relations with the USSR). This friendliness with the West would
sow the seeds for the demise of Yugoslavia.
The multiethnic and socialist Yugoslavia achieved a life expectancy of 72 years, near full
literacy and averaged 7% GDP growth in the 60s. Free medical care and education were
provided, as was the right to an income and housing. Yugoslavia was tolerated by the west as
a buffer between the Soviet sphere and Western Europe, but in 1984 and due to its anti-
Western and anti-Eastern sentiment in the form of the Non-Aligned Movement, the
destabilization of Socialist Yugoslavia and the imposition of the market became official U.S
policy with National Security Decision Directive 133. After the failure of the Vietnam War,
U.S foreign policy avoided direct intervention and instead opted for the funding of contras or
the imposition of market reforms and ‘shock therapy’ via U.S dominated institutions such as
the World Bank or IMF. Fortunately for the US, Yugoslavia’s Non-Aligned stance in the
Cold War meant it had been taking on IMF loans since the end of WWII, and by 1981 the
SFRY had a foreign debt of 20 billion. The IMF and World Bank demanded an economic
‘restructuring’. Neoliberal austerity reforms were imposed on Yugoslavia in the late 1980s –
wages were frozen, state subsidized pricing was abolished, worker-managed enterprises were
dismantled and social spending was cut. The national wealth was directed towards debt
payments as unemployment skyrocketed. The economic reforms have all but depleted
Yugoslavia’s means of survival. Slower growth, the accumulation of foreign debt and
especially the cost of servicing it as well as devaluation led to a fall in the standard of living
of the average Yugoslav. The economic crisis threatened political stability, it also threatened
to aggravate simmering ethnic tensions”.
Growth in industrial production shrank from 7% to negative 10% by 1990 as foreign capital
and imports flooded the republics, smothering domestic production. In 1989-1990 the World
Bank created 600,000 layoffs, an additional hundreds of thousands of Yugoslavs worked
without pay for months at a time. The IMF froze wages as inflation skyrocketed and by early
1990 real wages had dropped 41%. Overall. the IMF and World Bank programs greatly
undermined the federation and fuelled ethnic tensions and secessionist movements which
would tear Yugoslavia apart, namely by freezing transfer payments from Belgrade to the
republics. As the IMF took control of the Central Bank and rendered the federal government
almost completely powerless, secessionist movements began gaining traction in the republics.
Germany, a NATO member, politically and financially backed these secessionist movements
in Slovenia and Croatia. This included arms shipments and training. Slovenia and Croatia
were among the richer republics, and as the IMF imposed economic crisis worsened, they
became increasingly opposed to having to subsidize the poorer republics. In 1991 they both
declared independence and were immediately recognized by Germany. The leader of the
newly independent Croatia was one Franjo Tudjman, who wrote in 1989 that there was a
need to “be rid of the Jews” and that Holocaust death tolls had been inflated. The Western
backed leader went as far as to hail the fascist Ustaše (Nazi collaborators, who established the
first independent Croatia during WWII) and apologize for their crimes – namely the genocide
of the Serbs. The Krajina Serbs inside Croatia made clear that they wished to remain a part of
the Yugoslav federation – they were not recognized by any NATO members. Tudjman’s
Croatia followed in the fascist Ustaše’s footsteps and between 1991 and 1995 the US backed
Croatia drove out half a million Serbs. In 1992 Macedonia also declared ‘independence’ and
accepted occupation by US troops. In the same year fighting broke out in Bosnia-
Herzegovina, where the situation was more complicated – no single nationality held a
majority. Nonetheless, the United States and Germany backed the Croatian and Bosnian
separatists, providing training and arms, and thus fanning the flames of the conflict.
The Western-backed leader of the Republic of Bosnia & Herzegovina, was Alija Izetbegović.
Unlike Tudjman, he did not simply apologize for fascists, during WWII he joined the Young
Muslims, a group which advocated for an Islamic Bosnia and collaborated with the Nazi SS.
He did not hide his desires for an Islamic state and declared “the media should not be allowed
to fall into the hands of perverted and degenerate people who then transmit the aimlessness
and emptiness of their own lives to others. What are we to expect if mosque and TV
transmitter aim contradictory messages at the people?”. Foreign Islamist fighters flooded the
country, with passports provided by the Bosnian government. The only thing that was
missing was Osama bin Laden himself – one Bosnian newspaper allegedly noted that “If bin
Laden does not have a passport, then he has only himself to blame. He should have asked for
it in time”. In 1992, the Carrington–Cutileiro plan proposed a degree of autonomy to the
Bosnian Serbs in order to prevent war. After a meeting with US ambassador Warren
Zimmerman, Izetbegović was convinced to withdraw his signature, and the Bosnian war
broke out. The NATO powers (namely the U.S) had facilitated Slobodan Milosevic’s rise to
power as president of Serbia in 1989 to further open up the Yugoslav markets, but the
Milosevic leadership and the Yugoslav people refused to completely dismantle Yugoslav
socialism in Serbia – as late as 1999, as much as 75% of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia’s (FRY) basic industry remained publicly owned. Over half a million Serbian
workers engaged in massive walkouts and protests against IMF restructuring – often joined
by Croatian, Bosnian Muslim, Roma, and Slovenian workers. In Bosnia, a large number of
Muslims refused to give up on the Yugoslav idea – rightly believing it was only way to keep
the Balkans free from conflict. Bosnian and Croatian Serbs clung to the Federation when
Croatia and Bosnia declared independence. In the West this was spun as Serbian
expansionism – Western media often parroted the claim that Milosevic wanted a “Greater
Serbia”. In fact, the Serbs were simply holding on to what remained of Yugoslav socialism
while the Federation was being ripped at the seams by foreign powers and their proxies. It
became clear that socialism in Yugoslavia was resilient and was withstanding IMF
restructuring and the conflict that came with it, NATO intervened militarily. 1992’s
‘humanitarian’ UN sanctions on Yugoslavia isolated the country economically. Per capita
income fell to $700 per year, unemployment rose to 60%, Serb civilians endured a 37%
increase in infectious fatalities and their caloric intake fell 28%. Most astonishingly, inflation
reached 363 quadrillion percent. No sanctions were placed on Tudjman’s Croatia, which in
the same time period, with the support of private military companies composed of U.S
veterans, ethnically cleansed nearly 200,000 Serbs through rapes, executions, and shelling.
When starving Yugoslavia didn’t end the conflict, NATO began bombing Bosnia into peace
in 1994. The U.S brokered the Dayton Peace Accords in late 1995 between Yugoslavia,
Bosnia, and Croatia – without the Bosnian Serb leadership present. Milosevic made many
concessions – willing to do near anything to end the isolation of Yugoslavia and agreed to the
partitioning of Bosnia into a Muslim-Croat Federation and a Serbian Republic – both became
IMF/NATO neocolonies with a non-Bosnian “High Representative” appointed by the US and
EU with full executive authority. Radovan Karadžić, president of the Serb Republic, who still
opposed secession, was forced out of power. A right-wing monarchist took his place and
promptly purged the army, police, and government of any anti-NATO or leftist Serbs.
Dissident radio stations were shut down and protests were suppressed with NATO armour.
With all dissent crushed and the state purged of any officials not approved by the West, the
transformation of Bosnia into a NATO colony was complete. A similar fate awaited the
autonomous Serbian province of Kosovo. The ‘Kosovo Liberation Army’, which was
recognized by the US State Department as a terrorist organization, received British and CIA
training and arms. The group received the majority of its funding – and many members –
from the Albanian diaspora, Islamist fundamentalist groups, and the international drug trade.
The KLA relied on drug trade, assassination, intimidation (of not only Serbs but also ethnic
Albanians who opposed them), destruction of Serbian property (namely homes and
churches), and other acts of ethnic cleansing of non-Albanians. The Milosevic government
was provoked and cracked down the KLA terror, in turn it was portrayed as genocidal against
Kosovar Albanians. At this point, the Yugoslav federation was still suffering from economic
collapse and had no interest whatsoever in another war, let alone more NATO bombs.
Allegations of mass expulsions of the Albanian population by ‘Serbian’ (Yugoslav forces)
began to surface, but an OSCE monitor reported no international refugees and only a couple
thousand internally displaced before NATO bombing. Hundreds of thousands of Albanians
would be displaced by NATO bombs, as were 100,000 Serbs (who were supposed to be the
perpetrators of the genocidal ethnic cleansing). One Albanian woman crossing into
Macedonia put it bluntly and told a news crew “There were no Serbs. We were frightened of
the bombs.” Allegations of systematic, mass rapes and ‘possible sites of mass graves’ were
made. One NATO spokesperson alleged that the 200,000 Albanian women in refugee camps
amazingly gave birth to 100,000 babies in the span of 60 days, apparently due to ‘Serbian
mass rapes. Genocide allegations were popular, vastly different figures of 100,000, 500,000,
225,000, and 10,000 dead or missing were made by the U.S, NATO, UN, Kosovo and various
NGOs. The FBI carried out an investigation across the “largest crime scene in the FBI’s
history” in June 1999. They found not hundreds of thousands of bodies, but only 200 across
30 sites. Naturally, the Yugoslav army, and especially Serbian paramilitary groups did carry
out massacres and rapes – but nothing on the level of the systematic and genocidal allegations
that were made to justify bombing. In fact, NATO committed a slew of war crimes in the
1999 bombing campaign – the bombing was illegal from the very beginning and was
launched without the approval of the UN Security Council. The 1995 and 1999 NATO
bombings aided ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Cluster bombs
were dropped on highly populated urban areas. NATO estimated 350 would be killed in the
bombing of an office building in Belgrade housing TV and radio stations, and political parties
– the bombs were dropped anyway. NATO insisted afterwards that the civilian deaths were
‘unintended’. NATO jets bombed a refugee convoy, killing dozens of non combatants, first
trying to pin the attack on Yugoslav forces before retreating and claiming it was an
‘accident’. When a hospital was bombed, the only excuse NATO could muster was that it
was actually a military barracks. Journalists who visited immediately after found only the
remains of civilians and a hospital in ruins. State owned and only state-owned firms and
factories were bombed, as were state owned housing projects, water supplies, railroads,
bridges, hospitals and schools. This amounted to “privatization by bombing.” A Spanish
NATO pilot confirmed that NATO jets were “destroying the country, bombing it with novel
weapons, toxic nerve gases, surface mines dropped with parachute, bombs containing
uranium, black napalm, sterilization chemicals, sprayings to poison the crops and [more]”,
going on to call it “one of the biggest barbarities that can be committed against humanity.”
The situation in the former Yugoslavia has not improved since the NATO’s ‘democracy’
bombs were dropped. The FRY finally collapsed in 2006 and the Balkans have been
Balkanized once again. ‘Yugonostalgia’ has swept across the Balkans – many remember the
days of the SFRY as ones where they lived better. As many as 81% of Serbians believe they
lived best in the age of socialism. Similar trends exist in Slovenia, Bosnia, and Macedonia. A
‘Yugoslav’ identity persists in the Balkans. In the wake of the tons of depleted uranium
dropped on the former Yugoslavia, there has been a spike in leukemia and cancer. Serbia is
still host to hundreds of thousands of refugees and displaced peoples. The neocolonial
protectorate installed in Bosnia has proved hugely unpopular – many have called it a ‘failed
state’. Corruption is rampant and economic growth is slow. In a 2013 survey, half the
respondents chose the word “lethargic” to describe their current state of mind – less than 15
percent used positive words such “optimistic” or “content”. The citizens of Bosnia and
Kosovo see their governments as corrupt, and worse still see government efforts to curb
corruption as essentially useless. Anti-NATO demonstrations in the country gather thousands,
if not tens of thousands in the streets. Many Serbs still wish to see NATO punished for war
crimes during the bombing campaigns – it seems NATO imposed democracy has not been
accepted with open arms in the Balkans. By the year 2000, Yugoslavia had been ripped apart
with NATO bombs, IMF “restructuring” and ethnic conflict. Serbia was destroyed and the
rest of the republics were transformed into neocolonies of the Western powers.

Again, the most popular narrative is that the West intervened in the region out of
humanitarian concern – to stop genocide. However, this claim doesn’t hold up when actual
facts are brought into play. In reality, the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia was not a
humanitarian one, it was instead motivated by the colonial-imperialist, economic and
ideological interests of the member states of NATO – namely the United States and
Germany. Although the bombing was dressed up as ‘humanitarian’, all it really served to do
was dismantle all that remained of socialism in Europe and once again ‘Balkanize’ and
colonize the Balkans. This truth becomes obvious upon a principled analysis of the economic
interests and actions of the NATO world before formal intervention, an investigation into
how the actual intervention was handled, and a look into the current state of the former
Yugoslavia. The ‘humanitarian’ and ‘democratic’ bombs dropped on Yugoslavia resulted in
hundreds of billions of dollars in economic damage which dramatically reduced the living
standards of the Yugoslav people – the most damaging in the region since the Nazi
occupation during WWII. The strategy of Balkanization and ‘humanitarian intervention’ has
become the West’s (often through NATO) modus operandi; the same strategy of partitioning
unified economically nationalist and independent states first exercised over Yugoslavia has
also been practiced in Iraq, Libya, and now Syria. The results are always the same – a drop in
living standards, a huge resentment towards the West and NATO from the populations of the
targeted countries, and a profit for the imperialist powers.”
Sources:

Aranas, Paul F. J. Smokescreen: The US, NATO and the Illegitimate Use of Force. New
York: Algora Pub., 2012.
“NATO Reveals Kosovo Depleted Uranium Use.” BBC News.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/686593.stm (accessed May 11, 2016).
“Ex-Yugoslavs Pine for Unity and Dignity.” BBC News.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7417328.stm (accessed May 11, 2016).
“Serbia Poll: Life Was Better Under Tito.” Balkan Insight.
http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/for-simon-poll-serbians-unsure-who-runs-their-
country (accessed May 11, 2016).
Bilefsky, Dan. “Oh, Yugoslavia! How They Long for Your Firm Embrace.” The New York
Times.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/world/europe/30yugo.html (accessed May 11,
2016).
Chossudovsky, Michel. “Dismantling Former Yugoslavia, Recolonizing Bosnia.” Capital &
Class 21, no. 2 (Winter, 1997): 1-12.
Clark, Ramsey. NATO in the Balkans: Voices of Opposition. New York: International Action
Center, 1998.
Collard, Rebecca. “When We Were Yugoslavs: The Rise of Yugonostalgia.” Public Radio
International.http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-06-02/when-we-were-yugoslavs-rise-
yugonostalgia (accessed May 11, 2016).
Fawkes, Helen. “Scars of NATO Bombing Still Pain Serbs.” BBC News.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7960116.stm(accessed May 11, 2016).
Fenrick, W.J. “Targeting and Proportionality during the NATO Bombing Campaign against
Yugoslavia.” European Journal of International Law 12, no. 3 (2001): 489-502.
Gervasi, Sean. “Germany, the US, and the Yugoslav Crisis.” Covert Action Quarterly 43
(1992): 42.
Glenny, Misha. The Fall of Yugoslavia. London: Penguin, 1992.
“UN: Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the
Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1977.” International Documents on
Corporate Responsibility.
Johnstone, Diana. Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO, and Western Delusions. New York:
Monthly Review Press, 2002.
Makul, Anes, and Heather Mcrobie. “Yugoslavs in the Twenty-first Century: ‘erased’
People.” openDemocracy.https://www.opendemocracy.net/heather-mcrobie-anes-makul/
yugoslavs-in-twenty-first-century-%E2%80%98erased%E2%80%99-people (accessed May
11, 2016).
Marusic, Sinisa Jakov. “Poll Finds Macedonians Nostalgic for Communist Era.” Balkan
Insight.http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/macedonians-deem-communist-past-better-
than-present (accessed May 11, 2016).
Memorandum on the Violation of the Human and Civil Rights of the Serbian People in the
Republic of Croatia. Place of Publication Not Identified: Publisher Not Identified, 1995.
Parenti, Michael. To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia. London: Verso, 2000.
Parenti, Michael. The Face of Imperialism. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2011.
“Stradalo 1.008 Vojnika I Policajaca.”
RTS.http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/sr/story/9/Politika/1264384/Stradalo+1.008+vojnika+i+po
licajaca.html (accessed May 11, 2016).
Simons, Marlise. “Radiation from Balkan Bombing Alarms Europe.” The New York
Times.http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/07/world/radiation-from-balkan-bombing-alarms-
europe.html (accessed May 11, 2016).
Singer, P. W. Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 2003.
“Over 10,000 Participate in Anti-NATO Rally in Serbia – Organizer (VIDEO).”
Sputnik.http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160327/1037059522/nato-protests-serbia.html
(accessed May 11, 2016).
Stiglmayer, Alexandra. “Work in Progress: Bosnia 20 Years after Dayton.” NATO
Review.http://www.nato.int/docu/Review/2015/Also-in-2015/dayton-20-years-bosnia-
serbia/EN/index.htm (accessed May 11, 2016).
Human Rights Watch. The Crisis in Kosovo. Report. 2000.
Todorova, Maria Nikolaeva., and Zsuzsa Gille. Post-communist Nostalgia. New York:
Berghahn Books, 2010.
Trotsky, Leon, George Weissman, and Duncan Williams. The Balkan Wars, 1912-13: The
War Correspondence of Leon Trotsky. New York: Monad Press, 1980.
Tuđman, Franjo. Franjo Tudjman on the Jews: Excerpts from the Book: “Wastelands–
historical Truth” Place of Publication Not Identified: Publisher Not Identified, 1989.
Velikonja, Mitja.” RED SHADES”: NOSTALGIA FOR SOCIALISM AS AN ELEMENT
OF CULTURAL PLURALISM IN THE SLOVENIAN TRANSITION.” Slovene Studies 30,
no. 2 (October 2008).
Webster, Andrew. “Hague Conventions (1899, 1907).” The Encyclopedia of War, 2011.
World Bank, Industrial Restructuring Study: Overview, Issues, and Strategy for
Restructuring. Report. Washington, D.C, 1991.
Zimonjic, Vesna Peric. “Fallout of Serbia Bombing ‘Continues to Kill’” Anti War.
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/zimonjic.php?articleid=14450 (accessed May 11, 2016).

W.J Fenrick, “Targeting and Proportionality during the NATO Campaign against Yugoslavia

On the matter of the earliest rulers of the Early Slavs:

“Mezamir was the chieftain of the Antes, an early Slavic tribal confederation in Eastern
Europe, believed to have been active around the year 560, at which time the Avar expanded
further into Europe. He was the son of Idariz, and had a brother, Kelagast. Mezamir was
recorded by Menander Protector (fl. 558–582). Mezamir was described as "powerful", and
had most likely established a Slavic confederation sometime before the 560s, which initially
thwarted the Avar khaganate. At this time, the Antes were vassals to the Byzantine Empire,
ruled by Justinian I (r. 527–565), with the supreme chieftain holding the Byzantine title of
archon. The Antes were given old Roman towns and stipends, in exchange for securing the
Danube from the Huns, and other Barbarians. At this time, the Antes held an "extensive
polity, capable of military mobilization against the Avars.” The Avars were ruled by khagan
Bayan I, and they used to pillage the Antes land, which at the time was neighbouring the
Kutrigurs, who were Avar allies. After the Avars had ravaged and plundered the Antes,
Mezamir was sent as an envoy to the Avars, to negotiate the ransom of captured Antean
tribesmen. At the talks, Mezamir appeared to be a "loudmouth braggart" who spoke
arrogantly and rashly, upon feeling that Mezamir became more arrogant than suitable for an
envoy, a Kutrigur Bulgar who was a "friend of the Avars" and "hostile to the Antes"
(believed by some to be khagan Zabergan; fl. 558–562) persuaded the Khagan that:” This
man is the most powerful of all amongst the Antae and is able to resist any of his enemies
whomsoever. Kill him, and then you will be able to overrun the enemy's land without fear”.
The Avars disregarded the immunity of ambassadors (according to the jus gentium) and
killed Mezamir.”

“Mužok (Musokios) was a 6th-century (Antes) monarch that ruled around 592, during
Maurice's Balkan campaigns. Menander Protector writes about Musokios in his works.
Ardagast, a commander of Musokios, was sent and raided Thrace, which prompted Emperor
Maurice to deal with the Antae - sending an army with commander-in-chief Priscus and
infantry commander Gentzon to cross the Danube at Dorostolon (present-day Silistra) and
surprise attack the Slavs in their own territory (as the Slavs had long been pillaging the
Byzantine Empire). The Army arrived at the Antae camp at midnight, surprising the Slavs
who fled in confusion, Ardagast fell on a tree stump and was almost captured, but luckily, he
was near a river and eluded the caption. Priscus sent his lieutenant Alexander across the
Helibakion (Ialomiţa River) to find Slavs who were hiding in the woods and swamps, they
failed to burn out the people hiding, but a Gepid Christian who was associated with the Slavs
deserted and showed a secret passage after which the army easily captured the Slavs, who
according to the Gepid, were spies sent by King Musokios that just heard about the attack on
Ardagast.”

“Radogost (Ardagast) was a 6th-century South Slavic chieftain under King Musokios of the
Antes. The name may derive from Slavic rada - "council" or "rad" - "eager" and gostiti or
hostit - "to host", meaning "the one who hosts the council" or "eager to host - hospitable". It
could have been a personal name, or an acquired title designating the leader or chieftain of a
council, assembly, or veche. Menander Protector writes about Ardagast in his works, and the
Strategikon of Maurice (late 6th century) makes mention of him. Ardagast may have led the
Slavs who plundered Greece in 577. After the Avar Khagan Bayan I and the Byzantine
Emperor Emperor Maurice concluded a treaty in 584, Ardagast raided Thrace, penetrating as
far as the Long Wall. The Slavs suffered defeats only twice: at the Erginia river near the Long
Walls (583) and in the Ansinon neighbourhood of Hadrianople at the hands of Comentiolus.
The Slavs were later driven out of the Astica region. The raid in Thrace in 585 prompted
Emperor Maurice to deal with the Slavs - sending an army under commander-in-chief Priscus
and infantry commander Gentzon to cross the Danube at Dorostolon (present-day Silistra)
and to carry out a surprise attack on the Slavs in their own territory (as the Slavs had long
been pillaging the Byzantine Empire). The Byzantine army arrived at the Slavic camp at
midnight, surprising the Slavs, who fled in confusion; Ardagast survived the ambush. Priscus
sent his lieutenant Alexander across the Helibakion (Ialomiţa River) to find Slavs who were
hiding in the woods and swamps, they failed to burn out the people hiding there, but a Gepid
Christian who was associated with the Slavs deserted and revealed a secret passage. The
Byzantine army then easily captured the Slavs, who according to the Gepid, were spies sent
by King Musokios, who just heard about the attack on Ardagast.”

“Dervan/Dauritas/Dobreta (Daurentius) was a South Slavic (Sclaveni) chieftain. He seems to

have been the supreme chief, having lesser ones subordinated to him. His realm was situated
in the basin of the Zala river, roughly in the territory of the old Roman province of Pannonia
Prima, in present-day Hungary. Daurentius is the first Slavic chieftain to be recorded by
name, by the Byzantine historian Menander Protector, who reported that the Avar khagan
Bayan I sent an embassy, asking Daurentius and his Slavs to accept Avar suzerainty and pay
tribute, because the Avars knew that the Slavs had amassed great wealth after repeatedly
plundering the Byzantine Balkan provinces. Daurentius reportedly retorted that "Others do
not conquer our land, we conquer theirs [...] so it shall always be for us", and had the envoys
slain. Bayan then campaigned (in 578) against Daurentius' people, with aid from the
Byzantines, and set fire to many of their settlements, although this did not stop the Slavic
raids deep into the Byzantine Empire.”

Akameros (Greek: Ἀκάμηρος, fl. 799 AD) or Akamir was the "archon of the Sclavenes of
Belzetia" (ό των Σκλαυινών της Βελζητίας άρχων), an autonomous South Slavic community
in Central Greece under Byzantine sovereignty, in the late 8th century. He is mentioned only
once, by Theophanes the Confessor, as leading a plot involving the sons of Constantine V (r.
741–775) – the former Caesares Nikephoros and Christopher, and their younger brothers
Niketas, Anthimos and Eudokimos – who had been deposed, mutilated by their elder brother,
the emperor Leo IV the Khazar (r. 775–780). After Leo's death, his wife, Irene of Athens (r.
797–802), deposed her son Constantine VI (r. 780–797) in 797, and sent his uncles in exile to
Athens so that they would not threaten her rule. In March 799, Akameros, in collusion with
troops from the local theme of Hellas, planned to seize them and declare one of them
emperor. The plot was foiled however as Irene was informed of it, and the Empress sent a
trusted kinsman to Athens: the brothers were blinded and moved to the island of Panormos in
the Marmara Sea. Nothing further is heard of Akameros.

Peiragastus - the leader of a Sclavene raiding party, is mentioned in the History of

Theophylact Simocatta, was killed by the Byzantines.

Dabragezas – an East Roman officer of the Antes – apparently in command of the Byzantine
fleet in the Crimea, first mentioned in the work of Agathias Scholasticus

Chatzon or, in some modern Slavic studies, Hason, was a Slavic chieftain (έξαρχος
Σκλαβίνων, "exarch of the Sclaveni" in the Greek sources) who, according to Book II of the
Miracles of Saint Demetrius, led a coalition of Slavic tribes to attack the Byzantine city of
Thessalonica in 615. The Slavs with their families encamped in front of the city walls and
even launched an attack by sea, but the latter failed due to a storm (attributed by the
Byzantines to the intervention of Saint Demetrius, Thessalonica's patron saint) which sunk
many of the Slavs' logboats, after which the siege was lifted. Chatzon himself was allowed to
enter the city during negotiations shortly after. However, the urban mob rioted at the
instigation of the mothers of those slain during the siege and killed him, despite the city
leaders' attempts to hide him. After this, the Slavs asked for the help of the Avars, resulting in
the unsuccessful month-long siege of the city by the combined Avar and Slavic forces in
617/618.

“Bozh (died c. 380) was the king of the Antes, an early Slavic people that lived in parts of
present-day Ukraine. His story is mentioned by Jordanes in the Getica (550–551); in the
preceding years, the Ostrogoths under Ermanaric had conquered a large number of tribes in
Central Europe (see Oium), including the Antes. Some years after the Ostrogothic defeat by
the invading Huns, a king named Vinitharius, Ermanaric's great-nephew, marched against the
Antes of Boz and defeated them. Vinitharius condemned Boz, his sons, and seventy of his
nobles, to crucifixion, in order to terrorize the Antes. These conflicts constitute the only pre-
6th century contacts between Germanics and Slavs documented in written sources. Jordanes
mentioned three tribes of the same origin, that constituted the Slavs: Wends (West Slavs),
Antes (East Slavs) and Sclaveni (South Slavs), and stated that the Antes were the bravest and
strongest among these. He also stated that the Antes' rule was hereditary, while Procopius
maintained that the Sklaveni and Antes "are not ruled by one man, but they have lived from
old under a democracy. They inhabited the area between the Dniester and Dnieper, most
likely in the region extending from the Vistula to the Danube mouth and eastwards to the
Don. The tribal union of the Antes probably included some neighbouring West Slavic tribes.
The Antes seem to have attempted to form their own state in the frontiers of, or even within,
the Gothic state, judging by Jordanes' naming Bozh as "king".

Perbundos (Greek: Περβοῦνδος, Perboundos) was a 7th-century king of the Rhynchinoi, a

Slavic group in Macedonia. In ca. 675 he was taken prisoner by the Byzantine Empire due to
his hostile intentions towards Thessalonica, and transported to Constantinople. Perbundos
managed to escape, but was recaptured and executed, whereupon the Slavic tribes of
Macedonia rose up and laid siege to Thessalonica. Perbundos is attested only in the Miracles
of Saint Demetrius, a 7th-century collection of homilies in praise of Saint Demetrius, the
patron saint of Thessalonica, which provides much unique historical information about the
collapse of Byzantine imperial authority and the Slavic settlement in the Balkans. In the
second book of the Miracles, Perbundos is called the "king of the Rhynchinoi" (ὀ τῶν
Ῥυγχίνων ρῆξ), an apparently relatively powerful Slavic tribe living near Thessalonica.
According to the Miracles, in ca. 675/6 he came to the attention of the Byzantine archon of
Thessalonica as being hostile and planning an attack on the city. When informed, Emperor
Constantine IV ordered his arrest, and during a visit to the city, Perbundos was seized, put in
irons and sent to the Byzantine capital, Constantinople. The Rhynchinoi, along with the other
Slavic tribes living in the Strymon valley (Strymonitai), sent envoys to the emperor seeking
his release, and Constantine promised to let him go once the war with the Arabs was over.

In the meantime, however, Perbundos found an ally in the person of an imperial translator,
who urged him to escape. By passing himself off as a Byzantine (he spoke fluent Greek and
was dressed in the Byzantine manner) Perbundos simply walked out of the city through the
Blachernae Gate, and found refuge on the translator's estate near Bizye. Enraged, the
Emperor launched a manhunt for the escaped prisoner, and notified Thessalonica that the city
might soon be attacked. The search ended after forty days, when the translator's wife was
discovered as she was bringing food to Perbundos' hideout. The translator and his family
were executed, while Perbundos was interrogated. After trying once more to escape again,
and as his intention of raising all the Slavic tribes in revolt against the empire became
evident, he too was executed. On the news of Perbundos' execution, the Rhynchinoi, the
Strymonitai and the Sagoudatai made common cause, rose up and laid siege to Thessalonica
for two years.”

Neboulos (Greek: Νέβουλος) was a South Slavic commander in the service of the Byzantine
emperor Justinian II (r. 685–695 and 705–711), who defected with many of his men to the
Arabs during the crucial Battle of Sebastopolis. In 688/9, Justinian II forcibly transplanted
Slavic populations from the Balkans and settled them in the depopulated Opsician Theme.
From them, he recruited a special military corps, allegedly 30,000 strong, which was called in
Greek λαός περιούσιος, "the chosen people". In about 690, Neboulos, who already held the
rank of skribon and possibly served in the imperial guard, was placed as their commander
(archon). Neboulos' origin is disputed by some scholars, but the majority are of the belief that
he a Slav, for all written sources, like the account of Patriarch Nikephoros, state that he was
chosen from among the nobility of the Slavic settlers. In 692/3, after the corps' training had
been completed, they were employed en masse by Justinian II in a major campaign against
the Umayyads under the strategos of the Anatolics, Leontios. The Byzantines engaged the
Arabs in the Battle of Sebastopolis and initially had the upper hand until Neboulos, with the
bulk (some 20,000) of his men, deserted the Byzantine lines and went over to the Arabs,
allegedly bribed by the Arab commander, Muhammad ibn Marwan. Some sources report,
probably with great exaggeration, how thereafter Justinian took his revenge on the remaining
Slavs: he disbanded the corps, and killed or sold into slavery many of its men, as well as the
families of the deserters. Neboulos and his men, on the other hand, were settled by the
Umayyads in Syria, and were employed in subsequent Arab forays into Byzantine-held Asia
Minor.

Name of the first known Serb ruler:

Dervan or Derwan was an early King of the Serbs (Sorbs) (fl. 615–636). According to some
historians and Emperor Constantine VII, Dervan was the brother of the Unknown Archon,
but some historians also think that Dervan may be his father, which is less likely. According
to Serbian academic Tibor Živković, the migration could take place between 629 and 632,
before Dervan joined Samo. He is mentioned by Fredegar in his Latin chronicle as dux gente
Surbiorum que ex genere Sclavinorum: "ruler of the people of the Surbi (Sorb autonym:
Serby, Serb autonym: Srbi) from the nation of the Sclavenians". He is the first ruler of the
tribe mentioned by name. Fredegar records him being subordinate to the Franks for a long
time and then joining the Slavic union of Samo. After the defeat of the Frankish king
Dagobert I by king Samo near Wogastisburg in 631 or 632, Dervan declared independence
from the Franks and "placed himself and his people under the rule of Samo". Dervan joined
Samo in his subsequent wars against the Franks. Further reports of Fredegar imply that
Dervan and his people lived to the east of the Saxon Saale. The reference to Dervan in
631/632 is also the first written confirmation of the presence of Slavs north of the Ore
Mountains. He was fighting against Thuringia 631-634 and Dervan was finally defeated by
duke Radulf, governor of Thuringia in 636.”

On the reasons why the JNA suffered a massive drop in quality throughout the 1990s:

“Come 1991, the Yugoslav army had a serious drop in performance as soldiers from other
republics didn't show up and many Serbian soldiers resisted the concept of the war. As
Yugoslavia broke up many of its soldiers and officers refused to turn up/deserted or joined
the other side, and morale was terrible. None of this leads to a quality army. While Milosevic
had muscled his way to power through staging popular incidents and through brilliant use of
television, many Yugoslavs still believed in Brotherhood and Unity. In Serbia, there were
revolts against Milosevic. In Sarajevo, citizens rioted against both Alija and Karadzic.
Because of this and the conscript nature of the JNA, officers had a hard time motivating their
men, filling in the empty positions of fellow officers who’ve either deserted or joined the
other side and reorganizing the army and to bring in motivated paramilitaries to start turning
things around. Further on, The JNA was improperly used for political and diplomatic reasons
- instead of attacking over a wide front where they could use their numerical superiority, they
restricted themselves to border sieges. For example, in regards to Vukovar and Dubrovnik,
numbers hardly mattered in these sieges since they were slow crawls into small towns. While
numbers matter in sweeping offensives covering large amounts of territory, these battles were
restricted to small areas where the Croatians had enough men. Vukovar back then was not a
huge city, and was easy to hold. The JNA high command actually wanted to launch a
sweeping offensive throughout the whole of Croatia, and they would’ve have done better if
that had happened, but Milosevic refused for diplomatic reasons, fearing foreign
intervention.”

Further on the matter of the effectiveness of the Yugoslav Partisans:

“From documents found among the personal effects of General Hermann Reinecke, head of
the Public Relations Department of the German High Command, total German casualties in
the Balkans amounted to 24,000 killed and 12,000 missing, no figure being mentioned for
wounded. A majority of these casualties suffered in the Balkans were inflicted in Yugoslavia.
Although, according to German researcher Rüdiger Overmans – the foremost authority on
German losses in World War II and on his work - Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten
Weltkrieg, the most detailed authorship on the matter of German casualties in World War II,
the German losses in the Balkans were more than three times higher, and that 103,693
casualties were inflicted by the Yugoslav Partisans alone, and some 11,000 who died as
prisoners of war (on page 336).

Further on the matter of the Ottoman Empire:

“The local social hierarchies/gentries integrated themselves into the Ottoman system (see
Serbian Knezes and Albanian tribal chieftains), or outright disappeared (in the case of places
like Bulgaria and Greece) and had to be replaced by a new class of western
educated/influenced intellectuals which came about during Napoleonic times. The incentive
of a romantic national revolt is pretty low for illiterate farmers/shepherds who just want to
feed their families. What most laymen, even some historians are unaware of, thus shouldn’t
assess this matter in the least:

1. After their conquest of Southeastern Europe, the Ottomans had all of the Balkans under
their dependance.
2. The Ottomans ruled the Balkans for a comparatively long time.
3. The amount of time that the Balkans took to gain full independence was comparatively
long

4. The Ottomans have intensified their efforts to consolidate their rule over the Balkans in the
aftermath of the failure to sieze Vienna
Firstly, the Ottomans never established full control over the Balkans. They used local
Christians to collect taxes in rural areas, such as the Armatoi. In reality, these kept their
loyalty with their own and as a result, were extremely corrupt and unreliable. Janissary
recruitment, Jizya taxes, the Dhimmi system, violence etc. contributed to the rebellious
attitude of the rural populace, which resulted in brigand groups such as the Hajduks and
Klephts filling the power vacuum. In other words, only the fortified cities were under full
Ottoman control, with a small cosmopolitan bureaucratic elite of Muslims and a garrison of
Muslim soldiers. The rest consisted of wild forests and mountain ranges where the Ottoman
Army would not even enter due to risk of ambushes and villages&towns with allegiance to
said brigands. Secondly, small states continously kept their independence, lands like
Montenegro, Dalmatia, Ragusa and the Greek isles were left unconquered. Thirdly,
Balkanites continously rose in rebellion against the Ottomans. An exhaustive list would be
too much to compile, though there were large uprisings every century.
Lastly, the Ottomans took long to conquer all of Southeastern Euope. It was only by the 16th
century that they got the Romanian states as vassals. And after that, their decline already set
in, until the Habsburgs temporarily liberated parts of Serbia and Wallachia in 1717. In
conclusion, the Ottomans only ruled all Balkans for ~350 years and have never established
full control over it, compare that to the Mongol rule of Russia.”

On the matter of the summary of Western subversion of former Socialist/Communist Europe,

and their intentional, planned undermining of Yugoslavia:

“It's alarming how in the case of Eastern powerhouses where international subversion was
historically recorded, especially that of Western powers, the Westerner refuses to apply the
argument of subversion, but in the case of his post-capitalist, rootless and transnational
entities, which were and still are fully complicit with the demands and aspirations of
transnational investment and banking magnates, and have also aligned their interests with
theirs, they do. Further on, every form of "sexual revolution" and "liberal tensions" in the east
is the result of Germanic economic and cultural pressure and the work of their NGOs that are
tasked to undermine the local cultures, governments, and even sociopolitical stability.
Further on, the reasons why all of former Communist Europe joined or seeks to join the EU is
because of the following:
a) The example made with the violent dissolution of Yugoslavia, a socialist country that
refused to open its market to exploitation by Western, mainly Germanic countries (Germans
and Austrians have, since the destruction of Yugoslavia, bought off nearly everything of
value in Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia under the cover of "privatization", while the Anglo
establishment reigns over the leading party of Montenegro), and the subsequent bombing of
Serbia (by the American-dominated NATO) that utterly destroyed its industry and
infrastructure, which also culminated with the stripping of a third of Serbia's territory, which
then subsequently devolved into a drug-dealing, organ and human trafficking mafia state with
one of the highest rates of terrorist affiliations in Europe. In other words, submit to our
system, or face annihilation.
b) Western secret agencies have, since the fall of the Iron Curtain, established a massive, and
ever-growing network of interests and assets all across Eastern and Southeastern Europe, to
make sure that for whomever people vote, they will always vote for a party or an individual
who will further Western geopolitical and economic interests, in other words, controlled
opposition, whether left or right. Naturally, men who didn't want to partake in that were
assassinated, the foremost examples of that are Hakija Turajlic, Jozo Leutar and Zoran
Djindjic. Interestingly enough, only three individuals of non-Germanic origin were involved
in all of this, Madeleine Albright, general Wesley Clark and senator Zimmerman (the one
who persuaded Alija Izetbegovic to declare independence in Bosnia and Herzegovina, thus
sparking the bloodiest war in the series of Yugoslav Wars, and is denying his involvement in
all of it to this day), and they weren't playing the leading role, but merely accomplishing
Anglo/Germanic geopolitical goals.
The Germanic ethos is not being targeted because "it’s the best that Europe has to offer", after
all, that part of Europe has aided transnationals in their subjugation of the Mediterranean and
Eastern and Southeastern part of Europe, it’s being being targeted because their purpose has
ran out, and now it's their turn to face the same exact destruction which they’ve unleashed in
the aforementioned parts of Europe, and everywhere else where nations have refused to bow
down to transnational elites. Yugoslavia was a major competitive exporter, which produced
everything from nails to engines for nuclear and space missiles, and during its worst bout of
hyperinflation and other MMF-induced problems in 1991, was ranked as the world’s 24th
economy. Aside from that, Yugoslavia was a pioneer in robotics, digital computing and
nanotechnology, thus rendering any attempted demonization of its economy and innovation
as moot. Just the Mihajlo Pupin institute in Serbia alone was one of the most contributing
institutes of science of the 20th century, dominating with its inventions and discoveries in the
fields of System integration and networking, Information systems for government and
industry, Internet/Intranet IS, E-commerce, e-government applications, Decision support
systems, expert systems, intelligent Internet applications, Power systems control, supervision
and optimization, Process control and supervision, Traffic control, GPS,
Telecommunications, Digital signal processing, Simulators, training aids, specialized H/S
systems, Image processing, Real-time systems (large-scale and embedded) Turn-key
engineering solutions and last but not least, in robotics as well. Matter of fact, the institute is
well known and well revered in a wide range of fields. In the science community, it is
especially lauded for it's crucial and revolutionary work in humanoid robotics. The first
artificial hand with five fingers in the world was made in 1963. in Belgrade, by Rajko
Tomovic, and his design is the template for all future prosthetic designs and the one we use
today, and Miomir Vukobratović was a pioneer in humanoid robots (all modern-day models
are based on his design), and he's responsible for the theoretical model which explains the
control of biped locomotion. The fundamental concept of his model is called the Zero
Moment Point. In terms of digital electronic computing, we have HRS-100, CER Computers,
ATLAS-TIM AT 32 which were of vital, crucial importance for the development of modern-
day digital electronic computers, and the furthering of the science of digital electronic
computing in general. Aside from that, we also have webGL APNG as Serb/Yugoslav
contributions to programming, yet again, of vital importance. Same is bound to be applied as
rebuttals to theses that state that Yugoslavia didn't have the means to compete on the Western
market, an assessment contradictory to the historical realities of the state of Yugoslavia's
economy, which was that of a, yet again, major competitive exporting country, which traded
intensively with the member states of the EEC, and was powerful enough to refuse it’s offer
of membership in 1972 (at the same time when the UK joined). Also, any mentions of debt
being a leading cause for Yugoslavia's failure are moot as well, since even during 1991,
which was Yugoslavia's worst year, her debt was lower than the debts of each and every
republic which had replaced it, and on top of that, Yugoslavia was composed of 6 republics
and two autonomous regions. Further on, those who mention "unemployment" are unaware of
the fact that in Yugoslavia, a single working man could sustain a family of four with just one
source of revenue, and this includes a minimum daily intake of 4000 calories, social and
medical care for every citizen, exemplary education rights (Yugoslavia hosted tens of
thousands of foreign students, mostly from the member-states of the Non-Aligned
Movement), which meant that other family members weren't required to work. During the
Western-backed privatization of former Yugoslavia, the first thing that was purposefully shut
down were precise, heavy and medical industries, major exporting establishments and
construction businesses, especially those that were among the top infrastructure contractors in
the world, like Energoinvest, Energopetrol and Energoprojekt. All of these companies were
notorious for outbetting and outmaneuvering their Western, primarily American rivals,
regardless of the market in question. The companies carried out large construction projects in
Libya, Kuwait, Zambia and Guinea, and by the late 1960s, they also dominated the European
markets in West Germany, Czechoslovakia, and the German Democratic Republic. As I've
mentioned before, Yugoslavia was a fully industrialized, major competitive exporting country
which excelled and specialized in metallurgy, machinery and equipment, petroleum,
chemicals, textiles, wood processing, food processing, pulp and paper, motor vehicles and
building materials, even the Yugoslav arms industry was one of the most competitive
throughout the 70s and 80s.

Yugoslavia was offered full membership in the EEC at the same time when the UK was
offered to, (the predecessor of the EU), and Yugoslavia flat-out refused because it didn’t need
its membership, and was strong enough without it. Simply put, Yugoslavia was, aside from
being a bulwark against the EU's expansion into Southeastern Europe, also the founder of the
Non-Aligned Movement, which spearheaded the independence, sovereignty and interests of
the entire Third World, and by doing so, has prevented the East and the West from subduing
it. In that short span of time, all of the Third World has undergone unprecedented economical
development and the much needed social and political emancipation, which many of the
member-states have never experienced before. All of that was accomplished thanks to
Yugoslavia’s global initiative and the willingness to treat others as its equals, and sharing
power with all member states of its Non-Aligned Movement. Yugoslavia came into existence
after World War I in 1918 under the name of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes by
the merger of the provisional State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (it was formed from
territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire) with the Kingdom of Serbia, and
constituted the first union of the South Slavic people as a sovereign state, following centuries
in which the region had been part of the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary, the kingdom
gained international recognition on 13 July 1922 at the Conference of Ambassadors in Paris.
The official name of the state was changed to Kingdom of Yugoslavia on 3 October 1929.
Formed as a union between the kingdom of the Serbs and the state of the Serbs, Slovenes and
Croats, a state that wasn't recognized by anyone, and up until it's offers to join Serbia, was at
the verge of being partitioned between Austria, Hungary and Italy. A state formed where the
triumphant Serbs accepted the offer of Croats and Slovenes to form a union with them as
their equals is everything but a Serbian project.
It should also be noted that unlike most of Europe, Yugoslavia was one of the few states to
openly rise in rebellion against the German hegemony and to be liberated by its own army -
the Yugoslav Partizans, and matter of fact, nearly all of its territories were liberated some
time before the Soviet army has reached its easternmost border. Besides, Yugoslavia was at
odds with the Soviet Union and was never it's satellite state, and aspired to form a union with
Bulgaria in 1947/48, in hopes of forming a massive pan-Slavic state in Southeastern Europe.
Since the destruction of Yugoslavia, its former inhabitants have faced a substantial plummet
in living standards and a sharp increase in costs of living, coupled with deteriorating health
and social care and a highly negative birth rate, one of the worst in Europe. Also, Croatia has
managed to reach its GDP from the time when it was a federal Republic of Yugoslavia only
in 2012, a statistical and mathematical proof that the second wealthiest ex-Yugoslav republic
is 11 years behind to where it was during its tenure in Yugoslavia. Further on, even during its
worst period, Yugoslavia only had a million expats, while today, nearly a third or a half of
Bosnia's, Serbia's, Croatia's and Kosovo's inhabitants are forced to live outside of their own
borders, due to how poor the living conditions are in these modern, free market successor
states of Yugoslavia.”

On the West’s now-staple method of destabiliziation, and eventual neutralization of its

enemies, like Yugoslavia:

“In short, the US/ West used shock tactics. They suspended loans and neutered the economy,
then they started to slowly privatise industry and stream money to Trans National
Corporations, from where the money went to "democratic" separatist groups”.
On the matter of the most prevalent myths regarding the Slavic invasion of the Roman world:

“There are no Eastern Roman historians attributing the ease of Slavic settlement to Justinian's
plague - which was spread all over Europe (despite its popular name and the worst scenario
occurring in densely populated Constantinople) and almost certainly affected Slavs. As for
Avars, they’ve only managed to subjugate parts of more passive tribes such as Dudlebi, as
well as parts of Wends - certainly not Southern and Eastern ones. Likewise, the Avars were
firstly invited to wage war against the Slavs by emperor Tiberius, and then a bit later
Emperor Heraclius invited Serbs and Croats from the distant Slavic northwest to cleanse the
land from Avars and settle it as his vassals which he'd ennoble, which refutes any theory of
the Sclavenes and Antes arriving to Southeastern Europe off of the back of the Avars.
In the work of Menander Protector, we find the following excerpt:
"This movement of Avars against the Slavs did not only result from Emperor's envoys and
the wish of Bayan to return the courtesy unto Romans for all the gestures of friendship and
help that he had received from the emperor, but also because he held great hate for them (the
Slavs) out of personal sentiment as well. The Avar leader has, therefore, sent envoys to
Daurentius (Δαυρίτας) himself, and to his chieftains, calling on for their submission and
enlistment among tribute-payers. Dauritas and the leaders alongside him replied: "Who is,
then, the man which basks in sunlight that threatens to conquer our strength? We are used to
ruling over others, not to being ruled over - of that we are certain for as long as wars are
waged and swords are forged".
Since the Slavs acted so haughtily, the Avars were no different in boasting. Then the scolds
and insults resulted from that, being that the barbarians are of narrow and proud mind, and
the fight broke out. The Slavs, unable to control the anger, killed the envoys, as Bayan found
out from another source. Because of that Bayan has long since raised accusations against the
Slavs, fueling a secret hatred against them, mad for they refused him, and angry that from
them he received an unforgivable insult, in the same time he thought he would do a favor to
Caesar and likewise *find a rich land to plunder, for far too long has the land of Romans been
plundered by Slavs, and theirs (Slavic) - never by any of other peoples*."
De Administrando Imperio:
"Therefore everyone, who would like to do research about Dalmatia, can read herein about
the way how the Slavic peoples took it. The Croats with their families came to Dalmatia and
found the Avars in possession of that land. After fighting against each other for some time,
the Croats defeated the Avars, partially murdered them and partially forced them to
submissiveness. Since that moment the country was seized by the Croats.". Same goes for the
territories that were later inhabited by the Serbs, who were also tasked by emperor Heraclius
to exterminate the Avars who dwelled there, more about it can be found in “The Shores of the
Adriatic, the Austrian Side, The Kustenlande, Istria, and Dalmatia”, by Frederick Hamilton
Jackson.”

Interlude to the events that led to the war on Kosovo:

“Kosovo (often referred to as Kosovo and Metohija by the Serbs, which was also its name in
Socialist Yugoslavia until 1968, when "Metohija" was dropped) is a region settled by the
Slavs in the 6th & 7th centuries, just like most other parts of the Balkans. At first, it was ruled
by the Greeks, then by the Bulgarians, before finally being continually part of the Serbian
state under the reign of the house of Nemanjic, from the 12th to the 15th century. This was
Serbia’s golden age, and in the 13th and 14th centuries, at the height of the state's power,
Kosovo was the center of the state. (Earlier, in the 12th century, and later, in the 15th century,
Serbia's capitals and rulers have mostly resided north and west of Kosovo - in Raška proper
and in Moravian Serbia). During this time, Serbian rulers have had their endowments built -
monasteries like the Peć Patriarchate (1220s-1230s, UNESCO site), Dečani (1330s,
UNESCO site), Gračanica (1320s, UNESCO site), Bogorodica Ljeviška (1300s, UNESCO
site), Sveti Arhangeli near Prizren (1340s, destroyed by the Ottomans in 1615 and the
material used to build the Sinan Pasha Mosque in Prizren) etc. These monasteries and
churches are very important to the history and culture of the Serbs. Also, the fated Battle of
Kosovo, embedded in Serbian folk stories, legends and songs took place on the Kosovo field,
near Gazimestan, in 1389. Both the Serbian Prince Lazar and the Ottoman Sultan Murat have
died in battle.
Serbs and other Slavs made up the vast majority of the population back then, as evident by
early Ottoman census data (in 1455, 1571 etc). However, after the arrival of the Ottomans,
already in the mid-to-late 16th century, as evident from the Ottoman censuses, Serbs have
gradually begun to slowly leave some parts of Kosovo. This was especially apparent in 1690
and 1737/9 when Serbs had to leave Kosovo in great numbers, fleeing north. Serbs and their
leaders - the Patriarchs of the Serbian Orthodox Church, still seated in Kosovo (more
precisely Metohija), have naturally aligned themselves with the Hapsburg in the wars of
1683-1699 and 1718-1739, and have fled before Ottoman reprisals after the Hapsburg have
abandoned them on both occasions. Albanian highlanders (Malesori) from modern Northern
Albania, which is completely natural, have slowly settled the deserted lands. Some highland
tribes of Montenegro will also, to a lesser degree, settle there as well. (A similar process, yet
slightly different, will also happen in Raška/Sandžak, Plav, Gusinje and Rozaje) The
Albanians that came were of Catholic affiliation, and as we’ve mentioned before, from the
Malesori clans - Kelmendi, Hoti, Skrijelji, Dibri, Shala and the Grude. In the 18th and early
19th centuries most of the aforementioned tribes will inevitably convert to Islam, in order to
obtain a better social status. Also, some of the remaining Serbs will convert (today, they are
either Albanized or have become “Bosniaks” - Slavic speaking Muslims, such as those of
Gora and Podgor and Sredska zhupas-valleys) This trend of Serbs leaving and Albanians
filling in the void will continue at an uninterrupted pace, and by 1878 at the latest, Serbs will
stop being the majority in Kosovo, and Albanians will become the majority. The year 1878 is
very important to Serbs because they’ve defeated the Ottomans in the Serbo-Turkish war and
as a result, have liberated Niš, Pirot, Leskovac and the Vranje areas. Parts of these areas near
Kosovo were already settled by the expanding Albanians to a certain degree. These Albanians
did not want to live in a Serb-only Christian state, and thus some of them have willingly left
for Kosovo, while some were forcibly expelled to Kosovo. In turn, many Serbs from Kosovo
have left Kosovo and were settled in those lands deserted by the Albanians. By 1912, when
Serbia finally liberates Kosovo from the Ottomans (or, occupies Kosovo according to
Albanians), Albanians already have had a significant majority in Kosovo, and they’re not
contnent with Serbian rule.
The situation for the Serbs in Kosovo was especially difficult in the 19th century and up to
1912. There are numerous books with letters from Orthodox priests describing theft, beatings
and even rapes and murders aimed against the unarmed Orthodox Serbs (weapons were
forbidden for most Christians to bare) and Catholic Albanians by the Muslim Albanian
majority. The Ottoman authorities have mostly turned a blind eye to these events, and weren’t
interested in pursuing punitive actions against the perpetrators. Once the Serbs took control in
1912 and up to 1915, they retaliated in full. The Muslim Albanians were subjected to a
number of punitive campaigns, mass killings and expulsions, and former feudal possessions
were unevenly distributed, and aside from that, tens of thousands of Serbs colonists from the
rest of Serbia were settled on Kosovo after WW1, to strengthen the presence of Serbs and
Serbia’s authority. However, most of those Serbs have fled Kosovo in during World War II,
when it was incorporated into Italy- and German-backed quisling Greater Albania, and after
WW2 they were simply unable to return. After 1945, Kosovo Albanians were granted equal
rights, the state TV in Priština would (even in Milošević’s time) broadcast news and shows in
Albanian and Serbian. The Communist Party’s policy of “Brotherhood and Unity) did all it
could to mitigate all ethnic tensions. Kosovo and Metohija were given special autonomy
within Serbia, which culminated in the 1974 Constitution - Kosovo (and Vojvodina) were
given a voting right in the Presidency of the Federation, a power previously reserved only for
the 6 republics. Yugoslavia was also flooded by thousands of “political emigrees” -
Albanians from Albania proper, who were then strategically settled on Kosovo. However,
Albanians still wanted more - either a Republic of their own within the Yugoslav Federation,
or total independence. This was evident in the 1968 demonstrations in Priština. There will be
more demonstrations in 1981, 1989/90 and in 1991. In general, Kosovo was one of the most
underdeveloped parts of SFRY. People were poor. This led to no one being too happy. The
Albanians, who were, on average, even poorer than Serbs, have had extremely high fertility
rates and have experienced a great increase in population within the borders of Yugoslavia.
The numbers of Serbs have risen as well, but to a lesser degree. However, unlike Albanians,
Serbs were abandoning Kosovo by the thousands, finding it impossible to live in certain
Albanian-dominated areas, due to persistent anti-Serbian behavior and sentiments:
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/19/world/rioting-by-albanian-nationists-has-left-scars-in-
yugoslav-region.html
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/07/12/world/exodus-of-serbians-stirs-province-in-
yugoslavia.html
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/11/28/weekinreview/war-of-terror-by-albanians-in-
yugoslavia-strains-unity.html

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/01/world/in-yugoslavia-rising-ethnic-strife-brings-fears-
of-worse-civil-conflict.html
Throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s, tens of thousands of Serbs had abandoned Kosovo, often
having also sold their houses and land. The remaining Serbs started protesting and demanding
more right, and Milosevic was the first to take heed of their protests, changing the
constitution of Serbia so that the Republic can have more say within Kosovo and Vojvodina,
which was followed by the "Yogurt" revolution in Novi Sad and Podgorica, in support of
Milosevic, while the Albanian leaders in the Communist Party in Pristina were replaced with
those loyal to Serbia and Yugoslavia.”

Further on the matter of Kosovo:

“Kosovo was never a country, and there was no legal referendum about secession. If there
was a legal referendum about Kosovo’s secession, the whole of Serbia’s population would
have a right to vote in it, as Kosovo was still an integral part of Serbia’s/Yugoslavia’s
territory. Firstly, this is a problem of legality, meaning that, in accordance with mutually
agreed international principles of territorial integrity, no country in the world had a right to
recognise Kosovo as anything else but an autonomous region of Yugoslavia (and
consequently, Serbia).
Secondly, Albanians were a minority pushing for secession through UCK, which was a
terrorist and paramilitary organisation, and the reaction of Serbia’s police in Kosovo to
terrorist actions was unlawfully deemed as a human right’s violation by the US and NATO.
US has had an agenda in Kosovo and has used the opportunity to interfere in the internal
matters of a sovereign state.
Thirdly, Serbs consider Kosovo a part of Serbia, since it was one of Serbia’s historical lands,
and it was liberated from the Ottomans by the Serbian army in the First Balkan War.
Albanians were settled by the Ottomans on the territory of Kosovo in subsequent waves.
Today they are pushing the narrative of having an “ethnic right” to the land as they are the
majority nowadays, but that is simply not a principle recognised by any national or
international law. Territory is not, and never will be awarded to states and people by having a
majority in an arbitrary defined region. At best, it is a desperate attempt at justifying an
illegal secession which was followed up by constant anti-Serb pogroms and violence.
Fourthly, Serbia was unlawfully bombed by NATO, breaching the principles of sovereignty
and the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia, which was a diplomatic and international scandal
in its own right, and NATO actions were aimed at forcing Serbs and Serbia’s police and
military out of Kosovo.”
On the assessment of the “Making of the Slavs”:

“In the “Making of the Slavs", the author takes great liberties in interpreting preliminary
archaeological data and primary historical sources - which were, unlike the former,
selectively subjected to ambiguous scrutiny (and only depending on whether the paragraphs
or their general information supports the author's work), which is ironic and contradictory,
because as its author, Florin Curta is forced to rely on the aforementioned sources, while
unwarrantedly scrutinizing their validity whenever it suits him.
After he had realized that the Antes and the Sclavenes - who've formed the bulk of the Early
Slavs and were led by their own rulers, and were never under the suzerainty of the Avars, like
Dervan, Dobreta or Dauritas (trans. Daurentius), Radogost (trans. Ardagast), Muzok (trans.
Musokios) and Mezamir, didn't fit his "definition" of Slavs, he then portrayed them as "just
numerous tribes of heterogeneous origin" who were merely "hastily and "erroneously"
(unsubstantiated thesis) defined by Greek chroniclers and historians as "supra-tribal" entities
of the Early Slavs, and that’s only because the records regarding the aforementioned groups
of Early Slavs are the strongest rebuttal to one of his core beliefs - that those Pannonian tribes
of Wends who were few in numbers and subjugated by the Avars were the “original” Slavs,
even though the overwhelming majority of what we know of Early Slavs stems from the
aforementioned writings of Greek historians, who’ve based all of their work off of the
language, traditions, history and beliefs of the Sclavenes and Antes.
This particular detail was recorded by Procopius and Pseudo-Maurice, and both have stated
that the Sclaveni and Antes are two barbarian peoples with the same institutions and customs
since ancient times, and that they're a numerous people, who did not allow enslavement and
conquest, and were resistant to hardship, bearing all weathers. who've led a primitive life and
were henotheistic, believing in the god of lightning (Perun), the ruler of all, to whom they
sacrificed cattle. Matter of fact, Menander Protector refers to the Sclavenes and their supreme
leader Daurentius as "Slavs" and states that he and all of his Sclavene chieftains refused
Bayan's demands for tribute and submission, and in the following diplomatic meeting
between the Sclavenes and the Avars, Menander writes the following: "This movement of
Avars against the Slavs did not only result from Emperor's envoys and the wish of Bayan to
return the courtesy unto Romans for all the gestures of friendship and help that he had
received from the Emperor, but also because he held great hate for them (the Slavs) out of
personal sentiment as well. The Avar leader has, therefore, sent envoys to Daurentius
(Δαυρίτας) himself, and to his chieftains, calling on for their submission and enlistment
among tribute-payers. Dauritas and the leaders alongside him replied: "Who is, then, the man
which basks in sunlight that threatens to conquer our strength? We are used to ruling over
others, not to being ruled over - of that we are certain for as long as wars are waged and
swords are forged".
Since the Slavs acted so haughtily, the Avars were no different in boasting. Then the scolds
and insults resulted from that, being that the barbarians are of narrow and proud mind, and
the fight broke out. The Slavs, unable to control the anger, killed the envoys, as Bayan found
out from another source. Because of that Bayan has long since raised accusations against the
Slavs, fueling a secret hatred against them, mad for they refused him, and angry that from
them he received an unforgivable insult, in the same time he thought he would do a favour to
Caesar and likewise *find a rich land to plunder, for far too long has the land of Romans been
plundered by Slavs, and theirs (Slavic) - never by any of other peoples*."

This excerpt is important as well: “(Strategikon of Maurice: "...being freedom-loving, they

are in no way inclined to become slaves or to obey, especially in their own land."
(Strategikon of Maurice, ed. prep. V. V. Kuchma. SPb., 2004, p. 189). Just from these mere
excerpts we can attest the following facts:
1. That the Antes and the Sclavenes are undoubtedly Slavic, and they've shared the same
institutions, customs, language (Sclavene chieftains like Radogost serving under kings of
Antes like Muzok) and beliefs (henotheism and the worship of Perun, the chief Slavic god),
which refutes Curta’s theory of a Slavic identity being introduced to them at a later stage.
2. That the land the Greeks have considered as "Slavic" weren't subdued, raided or ruled by
others, that the Slavs are freedom-loving and that they’re in no way inclined to become
slaves, and that steps should be taken against them sometime after the meeting between
Bayan's emissaries and Daurentius, which contradicts his thesis of the Early Slavic tongue
being a small, isolated language, and that the territory where it was spoken was vast to begin
with.
3. That his theory of Proto-Slavic originally being a language of a relatively small ethnic
group, which was then spread as "Lingua Franca" only thanks to the Avar Khaganate has no
substantiation whatsoever, especially not in primary sources, which is the reason why he has
taken steps to scrutinize their content, but only selectively, meaning only the parts that refute
his theories - like the fact that the Sclavenes and the Antes were defined as Slavs for more
than a hundred years earlier than the Wends were (in Fredegar's Chronicle, where even he
discerns that the Wends were merely one of three groups of Slavs, the other two being the
Sclavenes and the Antes), which gives credence to the following postulations:
a) He’s making a name for himself in a poorly understood field of Western historiography by
publishing sensationalist interpretations of Slavic history that barely differ from the well-
known, imperialist and dehumanizing anti-Slav premises that were normalized in Western
academia for centuries.

b) The "Making of Slavs" was written in English - a language which has replaced German as
the chief expropriator of anti-Slavic sentiment and premise in the media and academia alike,
and was only translated to Romanian and Bulgarian, which is extremely suspicious, given the
Fascist and anti-Slavic pasts and policies of Romania and Bulgaria, which still persist in
some of their right-leaning parties and communities, even to this day. The fact that his
aforementioned authorship is one of the chief booklets of modern-day Balkan fascists and
autochtonists – who deny the existence of Slavs and are actively deconstructing this identity,
is damning evidence of the aforementioned.

Last but not least, we have evidence that proves that Proto Slavic was spoken as early as the
4th century, and that its unstoppable expansion into the surrounding areas was a well noted
phenomenon even as early as the 5th century. It should also be mentioned that Jordanes
provides us with the name of the first Slavic king ever to be recorded by name - Bozh (most
likely a shortening of “Bozhidar”, he’s mentioned in the “Lay of Igor’s Host”), who fought,
initially was winning, but was then taken prisoner and crucified with his sons and many
nobles by the Goths in the late 4th century. Aside from that, even if his theory had some merit
to it, it still fails to rationalize why Proto-Slavic was being spread to Eastern Germany, Baltic,
Poland, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia decades before the Avars have even arrived to the
northern basin of the Danube in 562 (on the invitation of a Greek emperor to act as allies
against Slavs), why there are no Avar toponyms in Southeastern Europe, while it’s full of
Slavic toponyms, or to explain why all Slavs (barring some groups of Bulgarians), whether
they’re West, East or South Slavic, still boast Early Slavic autosomal DNA as their major
genetic heritage, and are predominately bearers of Y-DNA lineages that have expanded in all
directions with the migration and invasion of Slavs, which further refutes his assessment of
the Antes and Sclavenes “being heterogeneous tribes that were hastily and erroneously”
described as Slavs by primary sources, and reaffirms their identity as Early Slavic peoples.”

On the Sclavenes:

“The Sclaveni (in Latin) or Sklabenoi (various forms in Greek, see below) were early Slavic
tribes that raided, invaded and settled the Balkans in the Early Middle Ages and eventually
became known as the ethnogenesis of the South Slavs. They were mentioned by early
Byzantine chroniclers as barbarians having appeared at the Byzantine borders along with the
Antes (East Slavs), another Slavic group. The Sclaveni were differentiated from the Antes
and Wends (West Slavs); however, they were described as closely related. Eventually, most
South Slavic tribes accepted Byzantine suzerainty, and came under Byzantine cultural
influence. The term was widely used as general catch-all term until the emergence of separate
tribal names in early primary sources. The Byzantines broadly grouped the numerous Slav
tribes living in proximity with the Eastern Roman Empire into two groups: the Sklavenoi and
the Antes. The Sclaveni were called as such by Procopius, and as Sclavi by Jordanes and
Pseudo-Maurice (Greek: Σκλαβηνοί (Sklabēnoi), Σκλαυηνοί (Sklauēnoi), or Σκλάβινοι
(Sklabinoi); Latin: Sclaueni, Sclavi, Sclauini, or Sthlaueni - Sklaveni). The derived Greek
term Sklavinia(i) (Σκλαβινίαι; Latin: Sclaviniae) was used for Slav tribes in Byzantine
Macedonia and the Peloponnese; these Slavic territories were initially outside of Byzantine
control. By 800, however, the term also referred specifically to Slavic mobile military
colonists who settled as allies within the territories of the Byzantine Empire. Slavic military
settlements appeared in the Peloponnese, Asia Minor, and Italy. Procopius gives the most
detail about the Sclaveni and Antes. The Sclaveni are also mentioned by Jordanes (fl. 551),
Pseudo-Caesarius (560), Menander Protector (mid-6th c.), Strategikon (late 6th c.), John of
Ephesus, Saint Demetrius and Theophylact Simocatta. The first Slavic raid and invasion
south of the Danube was recorded by Procopius, who mentions an attack of the Antes, "who
dwell close to the Sclaveni", probably in 518. Scholar Michel Kazanski identified the 6th-
century Prague culture and Sukow-Dziedzice group as Sclaveni archaeological cultures, and
the Penkovka culture was identified as Antes. In the 530s, Emperor Justinian seems to have
used divide and conquer and the Sclaveni and Antes are mentioned as fighting each other.
Sclaveni are first mentioned in the context of the military policy on the Danube frontier of
Byzantine Emperor Justinian I (r. 527–565). In 537, 1,600 cavalrymen, made up of mostly
Sclaveni and Antes, were shipped by Justinian to Italy to save Belisarius. Sometime between
533–34 and 545 (probably before the 539–40 Hun invasion), there was a conflict between the
Antes and Sclaveni in Eastern Europe. Procopius noted that the two "became hostile to one
another and engaged in battle" until a Sclavene victory. The conflict was likely aided or
initiated by the Byzantines. In the same period, the Antes raided Thrace. The Romans also
recruited mounted mercenaries from both tribes against the Ostrogoths. The two tribes were
at peace by 545. Notably, one of the captured Antes claimed to be Roman general Chilbudius
(who was killed in 534 by barbarians at the Danube). He was sold to the Antes and freed. He
revealed his true identity but was pressured and continued to claim that he was Chilbudius.
The Antes are last mentioned as anti-Byzantine belligerents in 545, and the Sclaveni
continued to raid the Balkans. The Antes became Roman allies by treaty in 545. Between 545
and 549, the Sclaveni raided deep into Roman territory. In 547, 300 Antes fought the
Ostrogoths in Lucania. In the summer of 550, the Sclaveni came close to Naissus, and were
seen as a great threat, however, their intent on capturing Thessaloniki and the surroundings
was thwarted by Germanus. After this, for a year, the Sclaveni spent their time in Dalmatia
"as if in their own land". The Sclaveni then raided Illyricum and returned home with booty.
In 558 the Avars arrived at the Black Sea steppe, and defeated the Antes between the Dnieper
and Dniester. The Avars subsequently allied themselves with the Sclaveni. Daurentius (fl.
577–579), the first Slavic chieftain recorded by name, was sent an Avar embassy requesting
his Slavs to accept Avar suzerainty and pay tribute, because the Avars knew that the Slavs
had amassed great wealth after repeatedly plundering the Balkans. Daurentius reportedly
retorted that "Others do not conquer our land, we conquer theirs [...] so it shall always be for
us", and had the envoys slain. Bayan then campaigned (in 578) against Daurentius' people,
with aid from the Byzantines, and set fire to many of their settlements, although this did not
stop the Slavic raids and invasions deep into the Byzantine Empire. In 578, a large army of
Sclaveni devastated Thrace and other areas. In the 580s, the Antes were bribed to attack
Sclaveni settlements.
John of Ephesus noted in 581: "the accursed people of the Slavs set out and plundered all of
Greece, the regions surrounding Thessalonica, and Thrace, taking many towns and castles,
laying waste, burning, pillaging, and seizing the whole country." However, John exaggerated
the intensity of the Slavic incursions since he was influenced by his confinement in
Constantinople from 571 up until 579. Moreover, he perceived the Slavs as God's instrument
for punishing the persecutors of the Monophysites. By the 580s, as the Slav communities on
the Danube became larger and more organised, raids became larger and resulted in permanent
settlement. By 586, they managed to raid the western Peloponnese, Attica, Epirus, leaving
only the east part of Peloponnese, which was mountainous and inaccessible. In 586, as many
as 100,000 Slav warriors raided Thessaloniki. The final attempt to restore the northern border
was from 591 to 605, when the end of conflicts with Persia allowed Emperor Maurice to
transfer units to the north. However, he was deposed after a military revolt in 602, and the
Danubian frontier collapsed one and a half decades later. In 602, the Avars attacked the
Antes; this is the last mention of Antes in historical sources. In 615, during the reign of
Heraclius (r. 610–641), the whole Balkans was regarded as Sklavinia – inhabited and
controlled by Slavs. Chatzon led the Slavic attack on Thessaloniki that year. The Slavs asked
the Avars for aid, resulting in an unsuccessful siege (617). In 630, Sclaveni attempted to take
Thessaloniki again, and in total, there were five attempts made by the Sclavenes to seize
Thessaloniki. Traditional historiography, based on DAI, holds that the migration of Croats
and Serbs to the Balkans was part of a second Slavic wave, placed during Heraclius' reign,
which resulted in the defeat and extermination of all of the Avars who were in their path and
south of the Danube. Constans II conquered Sklavinia in 657–658, "capturing many and
subduing", and settled captured Slavs in Asia Minor; in 664–65, 5,000 of these joined
Abdulreman ibn Khalid. Perbundos, the chieftain of the Rhynchinoi, a powerful tribe near
Thessaloniki, planned the fifth and final siege on Thessaloniki but was imprisoned and
eventually executed after escaping prison; the Rhynchinoi, Strymonitai and Sagoudatai made
common cause, rose up and laid siege to Thessaloniki for two years (676–679). Justinian II (r.
685–695) settled as many as 30,000 Slavs from Thrace in Asia Minor, in an attempt to boost
military strength. Most of them however, with their leader Neboulos, deserted to the Arabs at
the Battle of Sebastopolis in 692. Military campaigns in northern Greece in 758 under
Constantine V (r. 741–775) prompted a relocation of Slavs under Bulgar aggression; again in
783. The Bulgars had by 773 cut off the communication route, the Vardar valley, between
Serbia and the Byzantines. The Bulgars were defeated in 774, after Emperor Constantine V
(r. 741–775) learnt of their planned raid. In 783, a large Slavic uprising took place in the
Byzantine Empire, stretching from Macedonia to the Peloponnese, which was subsequently
quelled by Byzantine patrikios Staurakios (fl. 781–800). Dalmatia, inhabited by Slavs in the
interior, at this time, had firm relations with Byzantium. In 799, Akameros, a Slavic archon,
participated in the conspiracy against Empress Irene of Athens.”
On the Antes:

“The Antes, or Antae (Greek: Áνται), were an early East Slavic tribal polity of the 6th
century CE. They lived on the lower Danube River, in the northwestern Black Sea region
(present-day Moldova and central Ukraine), and in the regions around the Don River (in
Middle and Southern Russia). They are largely associated with the archaeological Penkovka
culture by Michel Kazanski. First mentioned in the historical record in 518, the Antes
invaded the Diocese of Thrace sometime between 533 and 545. Shortly thereafter, they
became Byzantine foederati and received gold payments and a fort (named "Turris" - the
Latin word turris means "a tower") somewhere north of the Danube at a strategically-
important location to prevent hostile barbarians from invading Roman lands. Thus from 545
to the 580s, Antean soldiers fought in various Byzantine campaigns. The Pannonian Avars
attacked the Antes for the last and final time at the beginning of the 7th century, when the
Antes disappeared as a people. Scholars have studied the Antes since the late 18th century.
Based on the literary proof provided by Procopius (c. 500–560 CE) and Jordanes (fl. c. 551),
the Antes, along with the Sklaveni and the Wends, are the constituent proto-Slavic peoples
ancestral to both medieval Slavic ethnicities and modern Slavic nations. At times, debate over
the origins and the descendants of the Antes has been heated. The tribe has been variously
regarded as the ancestors of, specifically, the Vyatichi or the Rus (from a medieval
perspective), and, in terms of extant populations, of the Ukrainians versus other East Slavs.
Additionally, South Slavic historians have regarded the Antes as the ancestors of the eastern
South Slavs. Although the Antes are regarded as a predominantly Slavic tribal union,
numerous other theories of their ethnic components have arisen, but with little result to
overturn their overwhelmingly Slavic identity. The origins of their core ruling class have
drawn particular attention, including theories that this ruling nobility was ethnically Iranic,
Gothic, Slavic, or some mixture thereof, but theories of a non-Slavic origin of their elite are
unfounded, for all recorded names of Antean kings were Slavic, and matter of fact, all Antean
material findings are predominately Slavic, albeit with primarily Iranian influences. Even so,
it is possible that the ethnonym referred to the Slavic–Scythian–Sarmatian population living
between the Dniester and Dnieper Rivers, and later to the related Slavic tribes who emerged
from this Slavic–Iranian symbiosis, which is supported to some extent by material findings
which feature Slavic and Iranian motifs, but that could also be the result of Slavic
assimilation of the Iranian-speaking peoples. Regardless of that, all of the primary written
sources, such as Jordanes and Procopius, state that the Antes were consecutively described as
Slavs, and closely related to the Sclavenes. In describing the lands of Scythia (Getica. 35),
Jordanes states that "the populous race of the progenitors of the Slavs occupy a great expanse
of land. Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are
chiefly called Sklaveni and Antes." Later, in describing the deeds of Ermanaric, the mythical
Ostrogothic king, Jordanes writes that those people "have now three names: Wends, Antes,
and Sklaveni" (Get. 119'). Finally, he describes a battle between the Antean king Bozh and
Ermanaric's successor Vinitharius after the latter's subjugation by the Huns. After initially
defeating the Goths, the Antes lost the second battle, and Bozh and 70 of his leading nobles
were crucified (Get. 247). The realm of the Antes included the whole of Sarmatian Sycthia
and lands between the rivers Dniester and Dnieper. The first contact between the Eastern
Romans and the Antes was in 518 CE. Recorded by Procopius (Wars VII 40.5–6), the Antean
raid appeared to coincide with the Vitalian' revolt, but was intercepted and defeated by the
magister militum per Thraciam Germanus. Germanus was replaced by Chilbudius in the early
530s, who was killed three years later during an expedition against the various Sklavenoi.
With the death of Chilbudius, Justinian appears to have changed his policy against Slavic
barbarians from offense to defense, exemplified by his grand program of refortifying
garrisons along the Danube. Procopius notes that in 539–40, the Sklavenes and Antes
"became hostile to one another and engaged in battle," encouraged by the Romans' traditional
tactic of "divide and conquer." At the same time, the Romans recruited mounted mercenaries
from both groups to aid their war against the Ostrogoths. Nevertheless, both Procopius and
Jordanes report numerous raids by "Huns," Sclavenes, Bulgars, and Antes in the years 539–
40 CE, reporting that some 32 forts and 120,000 Roman prisoners were captured. Sometime
between 533 and 545, the Antes invaded the Diocese of Thrace, enslaving many Romans and
taking them north of the Danube to the Antean homelands. Indeed, numerous raids were
conducted during this turbulent decade by numerous barbarian groups, including the Antes.
And as mentioned before, the Antes became Roman allies (after approaching the Romans)
and were given gold payments and a fort named "Turris" somewhere north of the Danube at a
strategically important location, in order to prevent hostile barbarians invading Roman lands.
This was part of a larger set of alliances, including the Lombards, lifting pressure off the
lower Danube and enabling forces to be diverted to Italy. Thus, in 545, Antean soldiers were
fighting in Lucania against Ostrogoths, and in the 580s they attacked the settlements of the
Sclavenes at the behest of the Romans. In 555 and 556, Dabragezas (of Antean origin) led the
Roman fleet in Crimea against Persian positions.

The Antes remained Roman allies until their demise in the first decade of the 7th century.
They were often involved in conflicts with the Avars, such as the war recorded by Menander
the Guardsman (50, frg 5.3.17–21) in the 560s. In 602, in retaliation for a Roman attack on
their Sclavene allies, the Avars sent their general Apsich to "destroy the nation of the Antes."
Despite numerous defections to the Romans during the campaign, the Avar attack appears to
have ended the Antean polity. They never again appear in sources, apart from the epithet
Anticus in the imperial titulature in 612, and based on the aforementioned attestation of
Anticus, Georgios Kardaras proves that the disappearance of the Antes stemmed from the
general collapse of the Scythian/lower Danubian limes they defended, ending their hegemony
on the lower Danube. There is even an anachronism in regards of the Antes in the Primary
Chronicle narrative in which is mentioned oppression of the Dulebes by the Avars, and the
tradition recorded by Al-Masudi and Abraham ben Jacob that in ancient times the Walitābā
(read as Walīnānā and identified with the Volhynians) were "the original, pure-blooded
Saqaliba, the most highly honoured" and dominated the rest of the Slavic tribes, but due to
"dissent" their "original organization was destroyed" and "the people divided into factions,
each of them ruled by their own king", which correlates strongly to the existence of a Slavic
federation which perished after the attack of the Avars. Shortly after the collapse of the
Danubian limes (the tactical Roman withdrawal), the first evidence of Slavic settlement in
northeastern Bulgaria begin to appear.”
On the Relationship of Slavs in the East Roman Empire:

“Byzantine literary accounts (i.e., John of Ephesus, etc.) mention the Slavs raiding areas of
Greece during the 580s. According to later sources such as The Miracles of Saint Demetrius,
the Drougoubitai, Sagoudatai, Belegezitai, Baiounetai, and Berzetai laid siege to Thessaloniki
in 614–616. However, this particular event was actually of local significance. A combined
effort of the Avars and Slavs two years later also failed to take the city. In 626, a combined
Avar, Bulgar and Slav army besieged Constantinople. The siege was broken, which had
repercussions upon the power and prestige of the Avar khanate. Slavic pressure on
Thessaloniki ebbed after 617/618, until the Siege of Thessalonica (676–678) by a coalition of
Rynchinoi, Sagoudatai, Drougoubitai and Stroumanoi attacked. This time, the Belegezites
also known as the Velegeziti did not participate and in fact supplied the besieged citizens of
Thessaloniki with grain. It seems that the Slavs settled on places of earlier settlements and
probably merged later with the local populations of Greek descent to form a mixed
Byzantine-Slavic community. The process was stimulated by the conversion of the Slavic
tribes to Orthodox Christianity on the Balkans, during the same period. A number of
medieval sources attest to the presence of Slavs in Greece. While en route to the Holy Land
in 732, Willibald "reached the city of Monemvasia, in the land of Slavinia". This particular
passage from the Vita Willibaldi is interpreted as an indication of a Slavic presence in the
hinterland of the Peloponnese. In reference to the plague of 744–747, Constantine VII wrote
during the 10th century that "the entire country [of the Peloponnese] was Slavonized".
Another source for the period, the Chronicle of Monemvasia speaks of Slavs overrunning the
western Peloponnese, but of the eastern Peloponnese, together with Athens, remaining in
Byzantine hands throughout this period. When the Byzantines were not fighting in their
eastern territories, they were able to slowly regain imperial control. This was achieved
through its theme system, referring to an administrative province on which an army corps
was centered, under the control of a strategos ("general"). The theme system first appeared in
the early 7th century, during the reign of the Emperor Heraclius, and as the Byzantine Empire
recovered, it was imposed on all areas that came under Byzantine control. The first Balkan
theme created was that in Thrace, in 680 AD. By 695, a second theme, that of "Hellas" (or
"Helladikoi"), was established, probably in eastern central Greece. Subduing the Slavs in
these themes was simply a matter of accommodating the needs of the Slavic elites and
providing them with incentives for their inclusion into the imperial administration.

It was not until 100 years later that a third theme would be established. In 782–784, the
eunuch general Staurakios campaigned from Thessaloniki, south to Thessaly and into the
Peloponnese. He captured many Slavs and transferred them elsewhere, mostly Anatolia
(these Slavs were dubbed Slavesians). However, it is not known whether any territory was
restored to imperial authority as result of this campaign, though it is likely some was.
Sometime between 790 and 802, the theme of Macedonia was created, centered on
Adrianople (east of the modern geographic entity). A serious and successful recovery began
under Nicephorus I (802–811). In 805, the theme of the Peloponnese was created. According
to the Chronicle of Monemvasia in 805 the Byzantine governor of Corinth went to war with
the Slavs, obliterated them, and allowed the original inhabitants to claim their own, the city of
Patras was recovered and the region re-settled with Greeks. In the 9th century, new themes
continued to arise, although many were small and were carved out of original, larger themes.
New themes in the 9th century included those of Thessalonica, Dyrrhachium, Strymon, and
Nicopolis. From these themes, Byzantine laws and culture flowed into the interior. By the
end of the 9th century most of Greece was culturally and administratively Greek again, with
the exception of a few Slavic tribes in the mountains such as the Melingoi and Ezeritai.
Although they were to remain relatively autonomous until Ottoman times, such tribes were
the exception rather than the rule. Apart from military expeditions against Slavs, the re-
Hellenization process begun under Nicephorus I involved (often forcible) transfer of peoples.
Many Slavs were moved to other parts of the empire, such as Anatolia and made to serve in
the military. In return, many Greeks from Sicily and Asia Minor were brought to the interior
of Greece, to increase the number of defenders at the emperor’s disposal and dilute the
concentration of Slavs. Even non-Greeks were transferred to the Balkans, such as Armenians.
As more of the peripheral territories of the Byzantine Empire were lost in the following
centuries, e.g., Sicily, southern Italy and Asia Minor, their Greek-speakers made their own
way back to Greece. That the re-Hellenization of Greece through population transfers and
cultural activities of the Church was successful suggests Slavs found themselves in the midst
of many Greeks. It is doubtful that such large number could have been transplanted into
Greece in the 9th century, there surely would have been many Greeks’ remaining in Greece
and continuing to speak Greek throughout the period of Slavic occupation. The success of re-
Hellenization also suggests the number of Slavs in Greece was far smaller than the numbers
found in the former Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. For example, Bulgaria could not be Hellenized
when Byzantine administration was established over the Bulgarians in 1018 to last for well
over a century, until 1186. Eventually, the Byzantines recovered the imperial border north all
the way to today's region of Macedonia (which would serve as the northern border of the
Byzantine Empire until 1018), although independent Slavic villages remained. As the Slavs
supposedly occupied the entire Balkan interior, Constantinople was effectively cut off from
the Dalmatian cities under its (nominal) control. Dalmatia came to have closer ties with the
Italian Peninsula, because of ability to maintain contact by sea (however, this too, was
troubled by Slavic pirates). Additionally, Constantinople was cut off from Rome, which
contributed to the growing cultural and political separation between the two centers of
European Christendom.”

On the earliest written accounts of the Gusli:

“N. M. Karamzin refers to the writings of the Greek historian Theophylact Simocatta (VI
century):
This case, described by Byzantine historians, is worthy of note. "The Greeks (they relate)
took three strangers as captives, who had, instead of weapons, kitharas, or harps. The
emperor asked who they were. We are Slavs, said the strangers, and we live at the farthest
end of the Western Ocean (the Baltic Sea). The Khan of Avars, having sent gifts to our
elders, demanded troops to act against the Greeks. The elders took the gifts, but sent us to the
Khan with an apology that they could not give him help because of the great distance. We
were 15 months on the road ourselves. The Khan, despite the sanctity of the ambassador’s
title, did not allow us to return to our/the fatherland. Hearing of the wealth and friendliness of
the Greeks, we took the opportunity to go to Thrace. We do not know how to handle weapons
and only play the harp. There is no iron in our country: not knowing war and loving music,
we lead a peaceful life. "The emperor marveled at the quiet disposition of these people, their
great growth and strength: he treated the ambassadors and gave them a way to return to their
fatherland. The aforementioned Theophylact Simocatta (fl. c. 630) wrote about these "small
lyres" brought by the Slavs who’ve invaded the Balkans, researchers believe that this were
the gusle. The first written Serb records of the gusle date back to Teodosije the Hilandarian
(1246–1328), who wrote that Stefan Nemanjić (r. 1196–1228) often entertained the Serbian
nobility with musicians with drums and "gusle".

On the matter of Maurice's Balkan campaigns:

“Maurice's Balkan campaigns were a series of military expeditions conducted by Roman

Emperor Maurice (reigned 582–602) in an attempt to defend the Balkan provinces of the
Roman Empire from the Avars and the South Slavs. Maurice was the only East Roman
emperor, other than Anastasius I, who did his best to implement determined Balkan policies
during Late Antiquity by paying adequate attention to the safety of the northern frontier
against barbarian incursions. During the second half of his reign, the Balkan campaigns were
the main focus of Maurice's foreign policies, as a favourable peace treaty with Persian
Empire in 591 enabled him to shift his experienced troops from the Persian front to the
region. The refocusing of Roman efforts soon paid off: the frequent Roman failures before
591 were succeeded by a string of successes afterwards. Although it is widely believed that
his campaigns were only a token measure and that Roman rule over the Balkans collapsed
immediately after his overthrow in 602. Retrospectively, the campaigns were the last in the
series of classical Roman campaigns against the Barbarians on the Rhine and Danube,
effectively delaying Slavic landfall on the Balkans by two decades.

At Maurice's accession, the greatest omissions of his predecessors were to be found in the
Balkans. Justinian had neglected Balkan defences against the Slavs, who threatened the
frontier since 500 and pillaged the Balkan provinces ever since. Although he rebuilt the
fortifications of the Danube Limes, he avoided campaigns against the Slavs, in favour of a
policy focusing on the eastern and western theatres. His nephew and successor, Justin II,
played off the Avars against the Gepids and later against the Slavs, but that only allowed the
Avar Khaganate to become, for a time, a more powerful threat than the Gepids and Slavs. As
Justin II let the Avars attack the Slavs from Roman territory, they soon noted where the most
booty was to be had. To make matters worse, Justin II started the Roman-Persian War of
572–591, which tied down forces in the east while they were needed in the Balkans.
Maurice's predecessor and father-in-law, Tiberius II Constantine, emptied the treasury. For
all those reasons, the Slavic incursions in the Balkans continued. A few months before
Maurice's accession in the winter of 581/2, the Avar Khagan Bayan, aided by Slav troops –
his Wendish subjects and Sclavene allies, took Sirmium, a large fortified settlement south of
the Danube. By doing this, Bayan established a new base of operations within Roman
territory from where he could raid anywhere in the Balkans unhindered. The Avars were not
compelled to leave the territory until the Romans agreed to pay 80,000 solidi annually. The
Sclavenes were not bound by the treaty and continued to pillage south of the Danube, which
made the Avars and Slavs to be quite different threats. In 583, the Avars demanded an
increase in the tribute to 100,000 solidi. Maurice decided to end all tribute to the Avars, as he
concluded that additional concessions would only provoke additional demands. The renewed
Avar invasion began in 583 with the capture of Singidunum after stiff resistance. The Avars
quickly moved east and captured Viminacium and Augustae, and they began attacking as far
southeast as Anchialus after only three months of war. A Roman embassy met the Avars near
Anchialus, but negotiations broke down after the Avar leader threatened further conquests,
provoking an irate response out of Comentiolus, one of the Roman ambassadors.
Nevertheless, Maurice established peace in 584 by agreeing to pay the Avars' initial demands
of 100,000 solidi. However, the Slavs were unhindered by the treaty and began to raid further
south into Macedonia and Greece, as is evidenced by many coin hoards in the region,
particularly in Attica near Athens and in the Peloponnese.
As Maurice's forces were tied down in a war against the Persians caused by Justin II, he
could muster only a small army against the Avars and Slavs who were marauding in the
Balkans. His efforts were hampered by the fact that operations in the Balkans were a
completely defensive matter. As opposed to the Persian theatre, the Balkan theatre provided
little possibility for a soldier to bolster his pay by pillaging, which made fighting there rather
lackluster. Maurice's badly-motivated troops found it difficult to achieve even minor and
local success. Rather an exception, a victory won by Comentiolus at Adrianople 584/585
deflected Slavic incursions to Greece. The evident destruction of vast parts of old Athens
probably happened around then.
Later, the Balkans deteriorated in such a manner that in 585, the Persian shah, Hormizd IV,
could reasonably hope to negotiate a peace treaty that would leave Armenia to the Persians.
Maurice rejected the offer and was able to negotiate much more favorable peace terms in 591,
after substantial successes on the battlefield. For the time being, however, he had to abide by
Avar and Slavic incursions and hope that his forces garrisoned at Singidunum could deter the
invaders, who posed a constant threat to the Avar homeland, just on the other side of the
Danube. The Roman presence at Singidunum was strong enough to effect constant ends only
of Avar, not Slavic raids. However, it could not prevent the attacks.

Despite the Roman garrison at Singidunum, the Avars destroyed the fortified towns of
Ratiaria and Oescus, on the Danube, and besieged Thessaloniki in 586, which were
accompanied by Slavic raids down to the Peloponnese. Under the leadership of Comentiolus,
the outnumbered Roman Army avoided any direct confrontation and restricted itself to
disturbing the Avar raids by skirmishes and night attacks, a tactical expedient that was
advised by Maurice's Strategikon. In 586 and 587, Comentiolus won several victories against
the Slavs on the Lower Danube and nearly caught the Avar Khagan Bayan twice. At Tomis,
on the shores of the Black Sea, the Khagan escaped via the lagoon-shaped coast, but an
ambush on the south slope of the Balkan Mountains was thwarted by miscommunication
among the Roman troops. The following year, Priscus took over command from
Comentiolus. His first campaign in Thrace and Moesia turned out to be a fiasco, even
encouraging the Avars to advance as far as the Marmara Sea. As the state of the Avar bridges
across the Sava River near Sirmium deteriorated, however, Avar pressure decreased. Even so,
Maurice did all he could to reinforce his troops on Balkans, as Slavic pillaging continued. He
hoped to acquire more money by cutting the soldiers' payment by a quarter. Announcing the
plans led to a mutiny on the Persian front in 588, which forced Maurice to abandon the idea.
As a consequence, in the Balkans Maurice had only limited means to keep the Avars and
Slavs at bay for the next three years. In the late summer of 591, Maurice finally made peace
with Persian Shah Khosrau II, who ceded most part of Armenia to the Roman Empire.
Finally, the veterans of the Persian wars were at his disposal and so was the recruiting
potential of Armenia. Decreasing Avar and Persian pressure enabled the Romans to focus on
the Slavs in 590/591. Maurice had already visited Anchialos and other cities in Thrace
personally in 590 to oversee their reconstruction and to boost the morale of his troops and the
local population. After making peace with Persia, he sped up that development by
redeploying troops to the Balkans. In 592, his troops retrieved Singidunum, but it was to be
lost to the Avars again. Smaller Roman units were involved in policing actions against Slavic
raiders in Moesia, re-establishing lines of communication between the Roman cities. Maurice
aimed to re-establish a sturdy defense line along the Danube River, as Anastasius I had done
a century earlier. Furthermore, he intended to keep the Avars and Slavs off Balkan territory
by invading their homeland beyond Danube, to enable Roman troops to increase their
earnings other than regular pay, by pillaging in hostile territory, which would make such
campaigns more attractive.
General Priscus began to hinder the Slavs crossing the Danube in the spring of 593. He
routed them several times before he crossed the Danube to carry on the fight in the uncharted
swamps and forests of modern-day Greater Wallachia until autumn. Then, he disobeyed
Maurice's order to spend the winter on the northern Danube bank, among the frozen swamps
and rivers and the leafless forests. Instead, Priscus retired to winter quarters in Odessos
(modern Varna). That led to a new Slavic incursion 593/594 in Moesia and Macedonia,
during which the towns of Aquis, Scupi and Zaldapa in Dobruja were destroyed. In 594,
Maurice disposed of Priscus and replaced him by his own rather inexperienced brother Peter.
Despite initially failing, Peter maintained his position, defeated the Bulgars at Marcianopolis
and patrolled the Danube between Novae (modern Svishtov) and the Black Sea. In late
August, he crossed the Danube near Securisca west of Novae and fought his way to the
Helibacia River, effectively disturbing Slav preparations for new pillaging campaigns. That
success enabled Priscus, who had meanwhile been entrusted with the command of another
army upstream to prevent an Avar siege of Singidunum in 595 in a combined action with the
Roman Danube fleet. The fact that the Avars retreated and gave up their plans to destroy the
city and deport its inhabitants, as opposed to their conquest of 584, showed their lack of
confidence and the threat they saw in the border fortress. Subsequently, the Avars turned off
to Dalmatia, where they sacked several fortresses, avoiding direct confrontation with Priscus.
Roman commanders were never unduly concerned about barbarian incursions into that
remote and impoverished province and so Priscus had to act cautiously. After that only
moderately successful Avar raid into Dalmatia, there were only minor actions in the Balkans
for about one-and-a-half years. Discouraged by the lack of success, the Avars saw more
prospect for booty in the West and so raided the Franks in 596. Meanwhile, the Romans used
Marcianopolis, near Odessos, as a base of operations on the lower Danube against the Slav
and failed to exploit the Avar absence. No major Slav raids took place meanwhile.

Strengthened by Frankish pay-offs, the Avars resumed their Danubian campaigns in autumn
597, which surprised the Romans. The Avars even managed to besiege Priscus' army in
Tomis. On 30 March 598, however, they lifted the siege. For reasons that remain unknown,
Priscus did not pursue the Avars and aid Comentiolus. The latter was forced to retire to
Iatrus, where his troops were nonetheless routed and had to fight their way south over the
Haemus Range. The Avars used the victory to advance to Drizipera, near Arkadiopolis,
between Adrianople and Constantinople, where a large part of their army and seven sons of
the Avar Khagan were killed by the plague. Comentiolus was temporarily relieved of his
command and replaced by Philippicus, and Maurice summoned the Circus factions and his
own bodyguards to defend the long walls west of Constantinople. For the time being,
Maurice had managed to buy off the Avars, and in the same year, a peace treaty was
concluded with Bayan, the Avar Khagan, which allowed the Romans to lead expeditions in
Wallachia against the Sclavenes. The Romans used the remainder of the year to reorganize
their forces and analyze the causes of failure.
Then, the Romans violated the treaty: Priscus advanced in the area surrounding Singidunum
and wintered there in 598/599. In 599, the armies of Priscus and Comentiolus moved
downstream to nearby Viminacium and crossed the Danube. On the north bank, they defeated
the Avars in open battle in their own homeland. That was not only the first Avar defeat in
their own homeland, but also saw the death of several more sons of Bayan. Priscus then thrust
north into the Pannonian plain, the Avar homeland. He defeated the Avars deep within their
realm, but Comentiolus remained near the Danube. Afterwards, Priscus devastated vast tracts
of the land east of the Tisza, much in the same way the Avars and Slavs had done in the
Balkans. Several Avar tribes and their Gepid subjects suffered particularly high casualties.
Two other battles on the banks of the Tisza meant further Avar defeats. Furthermore, the
Exarch of Ravenna Callinicus repulsed Slav attacks on Istria in 599. In autumn 599,
Comentiolus reopened the Gate of Trajan pass, near modern-day Ihtiman. The mountain pass
had not been used by the Romans for decades. In 601 Peter advanced to the Tisza and kept
the Avars away from the Danube cataracts, the latter being vital for the Roman Danube fleet
to maintain access to the cities of Sirmium and Singidunum. In 602, Peter inflicted another
severe defeat on the Slavs in Wallachia, and the Avar Khaganate was opposed by the Antes
and was on the brink of collapse because of the mutiny of several Avar tribes. One of the
rebellious tribes even defected to the Roman side. For the time, the Romans had successfully
re-established the Danube line, and forward defense in the hostile territories of Wallachia and
Pannonia was waged with success. However, when Maurice ordered the army to spend the
winter of 602/603 on the northern bank of the Danube to further his success and to save
money on quarters, his troops mutinied, as they had done in 593. While Priscus then had used
his own judgment and initiative, Peter did not dare disobey the emperor's orders. He,
therefore, soon lost control of his army, which marched straight to Constantinople. That led
to the well-known overthrow and death of Maurice, the first successful coup d'état in
Constantinople. Maurice had pacified the Balkan borders, a feat not achieved since the reign
of Anastasius I. The Avars and Slavs had been kept at bay. The provinces were at a stage of
potential recovery, reconstruction and resettlement were the keys to restoring Roman rule
firmly. Maurice had planned to settle Armenian militia peasants within the depopulated areas
and to Romanize the Slavic settlers in the area. After his ouster, those plans went astray as
well as the campaigns and the possible destruction or submission of the Avar realm. The new
Roman emperor, Phocas (602–610), would have to fight against the Persians once more: the
eastern enemy occupied Armenia in the first phase of the new war. Therefore, Phocas could
neither continue the campaigns on the same scale as before nor settle any Armenians in
Balkans. That finally led to the decline of classical Roman rule in the Balkan interior,
marking the end of Late Antiquity in that region.

Phocas indeed continued Maurice's campaigns and probably transferred forces to the Persian
front after 605. However, even after 605, it is unlikely that he withdrew all forces from the
Balkans because of his Thracian heritage. There is no archaeological evidence such as coin
hoards or destruction of communities implying Slav or Avar incursions, let alone a total
collapse of Roman power during Phocas' reign. On the contrary, there is evidence that
refugees from Dardania, Dacia and Pannonia sought protection in Thessalonica only under
his successor, Heraclius (610–641). Even a moderate recovery under Phocas may have taken
place. Evidently, many fortresses were rebuilt either under Maurice or Phocas. However,
even so, it was Phocas' inaction, more or less imposed by the deteriorating situation on the
Persian front, that paved the way for the massive invasions of Heraclius' first decade as was
well as the eventual collapse of Roman rule over the Balkans. It is likely that Heraclius
withdrew all Roman forces from the Balkans, so as to deal with ongoing Persian invasion.
The civil war against Phocas led to a deterioration of the Persian front unequalled by
anything before. That, as well as their successful campaigns against the Lombards in Friuli in
610 and against the Franks in 611, probably encouraged the Avars and the Slavs to renew
their incursions some time after 612. Fortunately to them, Persian capture of Jerusalem in 614
was the key event that Roman counterattack was unlikely. To support this view, the
chronicles written in the 610s again record wholesale pillaging. Cities like Justiniana Prima
and Salona succumbed to such attacks. It is unknown when an area was subdued by Slavs but
some events clearly stand out: the destruction of Novae after 613, the conquest of Naissus
and Serdica and the destruction of Justiniana Prima in 615, three sieges of Thessalonica
(c.604, 615 and 617), the battle of Heraclea Perinthus, on the shores of the Marmara Sea in
619, Slavic raids on Crete in 623 and the siege of Constantinople in 626. From 620 onward,
archaeological evidence also provides evidence of Slav settlements within the destroyed
Balkan regions. Some cities survived the Avar and Slav invasions and were able to maintain
communications with Constantinople via the sea and rivers. Many Danube tributaries
accessible by ship, Roman settlements survived like modern-day Veliko Tarnovo on the
Yantra River, which even has a church built in the 7th century. Heraclius made use of the
short time between the end of the last war against Persia in 628 and the outbreak of Arab
attacks in 634, in order to try to re-establish at least some sort of Roman authority over the
Balkans - evidence for that is the construction of the fortress of Nicopolis in 629. Heraclius
also allowed the Serbs and Croats to settle the Balkans as vassals who were tasked with
exterminating the Avars south of the Danube, the Croats even pushed the frontier to the Sava
in 630. Having to fight off the Arabs in the east, however, he could not finish his project.
Roman rule in rural areas of the Balkans was limited to the successes attained in short
summer campaigns. The cities of the Balkans, traditionally the major centres of Roman
civilization, had degenerated from the populous, wealthy and self-sufficient polis of
Antiquity to a limited, fortified kastron. They were unable to form a cultural and economic
nucleus upon which the Roman state could build. Their population was then assimilated by
the Slavic settlers. Even so, some cities along the Danube retained their Romanness until the
Proto-Bulgarian invasion of 679, also being under Byzantine rule until then. The fact that the
Proto-Bulgarians used a debased form of Greek as their administrative language shows that
Roman population and administrative structures existed there even after 679. In Dalmatia,
Romance languages (Dalmatian) persisted into the late 19th century, and in Macedonia, the
ancestors of modern-day Aromanians survived as nomads. The decline of Roman power on
the Balkans was a slow affair that took place because of a myriad of reasons, of which the
lack of Byzantine military presence was one of the chief reasons. Being short on troops in the
Balkans, Byzantium could not have provided for safe communication among cities.
Byzantium could locally impose a rule over some of the Balkan Slavs, and only on a short-
term basis, not enough to assimilate them. Byzantium, however, used any opportunity given
by pauses of activity on the Arab front to subjugate the Slavs and resettle them en masse to
Asia Minor.”

On the ramifications of the Slavic expansion further into Europe:

“The Early Slavic expansion westwards and southwards was accomplished largely at the
expense of the Romanized Paleo-Balkan and the opposing Germanic peoples, such as the
Bastarnae, the leftover Ostrogoths, the Rugii, the Vidivarii - a heterogeneous Germanic-
speaking people comprised of the Vistula Veneti, the leftover Visigoths, the aforementioned
Rugii and the Gepids, the Silingi in Silesia, and the Lombards in Southern Europe - who were
defeated in war and driven out from their former realms by the Carantanian Slavs. The
Lombards engaged in fierce battles with Slavic peoples during these years: from 623–26 the
Lombards unsuccessfully attacked the Carantanians, and, in 663–64, the Slavs raided the
Vipava Valley and the Friuli. As a result, religious strife and the Slavic raids remained a
source of struggle in the following years. In 705, the Friuli Lombards were defeated and lost
the land to the west of the Soča River, namely the Gorizia Hills and Venetian Slovenia. A
new ethnic border was established that has lasted for over 1200 years up until the present
time.”

On the aftermath of the Gothic War:

“The Gothic War is often viewed as a Pyrrhic victory, which drained the Byzantine Empire of
resources that might have been employed against more serious threats in western Asia and the
Balkans. In the east, pagan Slavs and Kutrigurs raided and devastated the Byzantine
provinces south of the Danube from 517. A century later Dalmatia, Macedonia, Thrace and
most of Greece were lost to Slavs and Avars. Some recent historians have taken a different
view of Justinian's western campaigns. Even though there’s no ancient historian who laid
blame on the Plague of Justinian, Warren Treadgold placed greater blame for the
vulnerability of the Empire in the late 6th century on the Plague of Justinian in 540–541,
which is estimated to have killed up to a quarter of the population at the height of the Gothic
War, sapping the Empire of manpower and tax revenues needed to complete the campaign
more swiftly. No ruler, no matter how wise, could possibly have anticipated the Plague, he
argues, which would have been disastrous for the Empire and Italy, regardless of the attempt
to reconquer Italy. It’s also paramount to mention that no Roman source attributes the success
of the Slavic invasions and Avar raids to the Plague of Justinian.”
On Proto Slavic, Early Slavic (group a) and Partially Slavic (group b) archaeological cultures:

a) Penkovka culture, Prague-Korchak culture, Sukow-Dziedzice culture, Feldberg culture,

Slavic Tornow culture, Mogilla culture, Volyntsevo culture, Kiev culture.

b) Chernyakov culture, Kolochin culture, Przework culture, Ipotesti-Candesti culture.

On the matter of the Slavic invasion and colonization of the Eastern Alps:

“The first phase of Slavic colonization of the Eastern Alps region is dated around the year
550 and originated in the area of modern Moravia (i.e., the West Slavic speaking branch).
From there, early West Slavic tribes moved southward into the territory of the former Roman
province of Noricum (modern Upper and Lower Austria regions). Subsequently, they
progressed along the valleys of Alpine rivers towards the Karavanke range and towards the
settlement of Poetovio (modern Ptuj), where the decline of the local diocese is recorded
before 577. The second phase of Slavic colonization came from the south and took place after
the retreat of Lombards into Northern Italy in 568. The Lombards contracted to cede the
relinquished territory to their new allies, the Avars. Avars first appeared in Europe around
560 when they reached lower Danube, on the invitation of emperor Tiberius, who made the
Avars his allies in his wars against the Slavs and the Kutrigurs. In 567 the Avars and
Lombards have jointly defeated the Gepids. At the same time, Slavic progress towards the
Eastern Alps is traceable on the basis of synodal records of the Aquileian metropolitan church
which speak of the decline of ancient dioceses (Emona, Celeia, Poetovio, Aguntum, Teurnia,
Virunum, Scarabantia) in the respective area. In 588 the Slavs reached the area of the Upper
Sava River and in 591 they arrived to the Upper Drava region where they soon fought with
the Bavarians who were led by king Tassilo I. In 592 the Bavarians won, but in 595 the Slavs
and the Avars gained victory and thus consolidated the boundary between the Frankish,
Slavic and Avar territories. Between 599-600 the Slavs pushed through Istria and the Karst
region towards Italy.

Slavs settled the entire Kras and the Gail valley between 600 and the 8th century. From there,
they’ve seized Friuli in Val Canale and in the secondary valleys (Dogna, Val Raccolana, Val
Resia), going even in the valleys of rivers Degano, But and Tagliamento. Other areas from
which Slavs have penetrated were the valleys of rivers Isonzo and Vipava, where they
entered in the eighth century. In this area they had already appeared during the joint Slavic
and Avar raids of early 600. Finally, there were raids and clashes caused by Slavic bands in
the valleys of rivers Torre and Natisone up to 720. The Lombards engaged in fierce battles
with Slavic peoples during these years: from 623–26 the Lombards unsuccessfully attacked
the Carantanians, and, in 663–64, the Slavs raided the Vipava Valley and the Friuli. As a
result, religious strife and the Slavic raids remained a source of struggle in the following
years. In 705, the Friuli Lombards were defeated and lost the land to the west of the Soča
River, namely the Gorizia Hills and the Venetian Slovenia. The attempt by Slavs to penetrate
violently even more westwards than before probably ended after they had been defeated by
the Lombards at Lauriana, in 720. During these times, the Principality of Carantania would
be founded, which would exist as state up until its absorption in the Frankish Empire in 745.
After invading and colonizing the Eastern Alps region, Slavs subsequently subjugated the
original Romanised population, which had dwelt in the territory of the former Noricum
province and in its cities. In late Antiquity, the original population evaded Slavic settlers by
moving into remote and elevated places, usually hills, where they built fortifications, such
examples are Ajdna in the Karavanke mountain ridge and Rifnik near modern Celje.
However, recent archeological research shows that even certain well-fortified cities in the
lower lying areas managed to protect themselves from the invaders. Part of the native
population escaped into Italy and to the cities along the Adriatic coast, among them Civitas
Nova (modern Novigrad). Many natives were enslaved by the Slavs (an old Slavic term for
slaves was krščenik, meaning a Christian, as the natives were Christians), some, however,
assimilated with Slavs. Slavs referred to the Romanised aborigines as Vlahi or Lahi. Certain
place names in modern Slovenia, such as Laško, Laški Rovt, Lahovče, and others, bear
witness to this. Also, a number of river names in modern Slovenia, like Sava, Drava, Soča, as
well as the geographic name Carniola (Slovenian Kranjska) were adopted from the
Romanised aborigines.”

On Jordanes’ assessment of the primary division of the early Slavs:

“Getica (551): "although they derive from one nation, now they are known under three
names, the Veneti, Antes and Sclaveni" (ab unastirpe exorti, tria nomina ediderunt, id est
Veneti, Antes, Sclaveni), that is, the West Slavs, East Slavs, and South Slavs. He stated that
the Veneti were the ancestors of the Sclaveni and the Antes, the two having used to be called
Veneti but are now "chiefly" called Sclaveni and Antes.”

Further on the thesis that the Avar Khaganate had played a role in the expansion of Early
Slavs:

“While it is possible that the expansion of the Avar Khaganate during the second half of the
eighth century coincided with the spread of Slavic language to all inhabitants and territories
within the Pannonian Basin, it still cannot explain the spread of Slavic into Poland,
Southeastern Europe, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, all regions that produced so far almost no
archaeological findings of Avar influence. Matter of fact, Southeastern Europe, which was
gripped by Slavic invasions decades before the Avars were invited by emperor Tiberius to aid
him in waging war against the Slavs and the Kutrigurs north of the river Danube, has no Avar
toponyms, barring the possibility of one, a Montenegrin hill called “Obrovo”, and even that is
merely a probability.”

Further on the haplogroup I2a1b-Din, and it’s vital role in the expansion of the Slavs:

“I2a1a2b-L621 is typical of the South Slavic populations of Southeastern Europe, being

highest in Bosnia-Herzegovina (>50%) in Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs, because of which is
often called "Dinaric". It has the highest variance and also high concentration in Eastern
Europe (Ukraine, Southeastern Poland, Belarus).[14] According to YFull YTree it formed
11,400 YBP and had TMRCA 6,500 YBP, while its main subclades lineage is I-CTS10936
(6,500-5,600 YBP) > I-S19848 (5,600 YBP) > I-CTS4002 (5,600-5,100 YBP) > I-CTS10228
(5,100-3,400 YBP) > I-Y3120 (3,400-2,100 YBP) > I-Y18331 (2,100 YBP) / I-Z17855
(2,100-1650 YBP) / I-Y4460 (2,100 YBP) / I-S17250 (2,100-1,850 YBP) > I-PH908 (1,850-
1,700 YBP). Initial research considered that the high frequency of this subclade in the South
Slavic-speaking populations to be the result of "pre-Slavic" paleolithic settlement in the
region. Peričić et al. (2005) for instance place its expansion to have occurred "not earlier than
the YD to Holocene transition and not later than the early Neolithic". However, the
prehistoric autochthonous origin of the haplogroup I2a1b-Din in the Balkans is now
considered as out of date, as already Battaglia et al. (2009) observed highest variance of the
haplogroup in Ukraine, and Zupan et al. (2013) noted that it highly suggests it arrived with
Slavic migration from the homeland which was in present-day Ukraine. It is considered that
I-L621 could have been present in the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture, but until now was only
found G2a, and another subclade I2a1a1-CTS595 was present in the Baden culture of the
Calcholitic Carpathian Basin. Although it is dominant among the modern Slavic peoples on
the territory of the former Balkan provinces of the Roman Empire, until now it was not found
among the samples from the Roman period and is almost absent in contemporary population
of Italy. It was found in the skeletal remains with artifacts, indicating leaders, of Hungarian
conquerors of the Carpathian Basin from the 9th century, part of Western Eurasian-Slavic
component of the Hungarians. According to Fóthi et al. (2020), the distribution of ancestral
subclades like of I-CTS10228 among contemporary carriers indicates a rapid expansion from
Southeastern Poland, is mainly related to the Slavs, and the "largest demographic explosion
occurred in the Balkans". The earliest archeogenetic sample until now is Sungir 6 (~900
YBP) near Vladimir, Russia which belonged to the I-S17250 > I-Y5596 > I-Z16971 > I-
Y5595 > I-A16681 subclade, as well I-CTS10228 and I-Y3120 subclades were found in two
Viking samples from Sweden (VK53) and Ukraine (VK542) with predominantly Slavic
ancestry of which the second belongs to Gleb Svyatoslavich (11th century).”

On all the recorded attempts of the Early Slavs to seize Thessalonica:

“Five times have the Sclavenes besieged Thessalonica, in 586 or 597, 604, 615, 617 and 676
(three of these sieges are described in great detail in the Miracles of Saint Demetrius).”

An assessment of the West’s renewed attempt at subjugating the Slavs:

With the fall of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, there was no one left to economically,
ideologically, martially and academically challenge the American-led West and NATO in
Europe. Just as the newly formed free market, capitalist and democrat post-Soviet and post-
Yugoslav states were economically and politically subjugated by the West, so too were their
academias and societies. All academics and intelligentsia who were in opposition to the
economic, cultural, ideological and political subjugation of their institutions of power and
state were subsequently removed from positions of power, defamed and ostracized, and even
assassinated and replaced by new generations of intelligentsia who are, by default, supportive
and in outright submission to Western academia, and are an extension of its thoroughly
cultivated, centuries-long anti-Slavic dogma, a dogma which has rooted itself firmly in the
very heart of Western academia to the point where it’s narrative, theses, intentions and
purpose are zealously furthered in the media and academic environments, and at the expense
of factuality to boot. Aside from being a flawless example of academic imperialism, this
dogma is also characterized by the following tenets:

1. To disregard, undermine, disenfranchise, trivialize, scrutinize and if the need arises, even
ignore Slavic sources and the contribution of contemporary, past and traditional Slavic
academics in matters of Slavic history, linguistics, genetics, or in any other field of study and
discipline where Slavs will field their own representatives and sources.

2. To never stray from the weaponized portrayal of Slavs as an accidental, passive people
who’re rarely masters of their own fate and history, and to never stray from portraying them
as mere tribes instead of historical entities. To always strive at diluting and subverting their
pride as individual peoples and as a panethnicity, to always postulate the thesis of them being
ruled by non-Slavs by antonomasia, to never desist from portraying their language, culture,
appearance and customs as inferior, and to never desist from implying they have a cultural
void and to dismiss their independence as a barbaric anomaly and contradiction to their
history.

3. To overemphasize the role of non-Slavic peoples in Slavic history while underemphasizing

that of Slavs, to interpret non-Slavic influence in Slavic culture, history, language and
genetics as being the reason behind the Slavs’ successes, while interpreting the Slavic basis
as the reason for the Slavs’failures. To portray Slavic triumphs over non-Slavs as being
entirely circumstancial instead of the result of demonstrated Slavic superiority over their foe,
to portray Slavic contributions to science, culture, arts and sports as being naturally inferior to
that of non-Slavs if the aforementioned endeavors were realized in their homelands, and only
begrudgingly superior if they were realized abroad, and only under the assumption of it being
the result of a superior non-Slavic environment and stimuli, rather than the genius of the
Slavic inventors.

4. To relativize the reality of Slavic history, language and material culture and interpret it
merely as an amorphous amalgamantion of past non-Slavic cultures, portray all of their
historical processes as being inherently chaotic, circumstantial and rarely the result of
amibition and willful intent.

5. To either ignore, scrutinize or take great liberties in interpreting non-Slavic primary

sources on Slavs that serve as a natural well of rebuttals to the aforementioned tenets in a way
that furthers them.

6. In the media, portray the Slavs as the anatema to humanity, civilization, morality,
prosperity and goodness.

7. If engaged in an argument with Slavs, disregard their arguments, assume a moral high-
ground and accuse them of being “Slavic nationalists”, “Pan-Slavists” and poisoned by
“Soviet/Communist” propaganda, portray Slavic academia as being reactionary and
revisionist, while portraying Western academia as an unbiased well of information just
because it’s Western, therefore inherently superior”.

On the aftermath of the Slavic and Kutrigur invasions during Justinian’s reign:
“After the Kutrigur Bulgar attack of 540, Justinian worked to extend a system of
fortifications that ran in three zones through the Balkans and as far south as the Pass of
Thermopylae. Fortresses, strongholds, and watchtowers were not enough, however. The
Slavs plundered Thrace in 545 and returned in 548 to menace Dyrrhachium; in 550 the
Sclaveni, a Slavic people, reached a point about 40 miles (65 km) from Constantinople. The
major invasion came in 559, when the Kutrigur Bulgars, assisted by the Sclaveni, crossed the
Danube and divided their force into three columns. One column reached Thermopylae; the
second gained a foothold on the Gallipoli Peninsula near Constantinople; and the third
advanced as far as the suburbs of Constantinople itself.”

On the summary of the history of the Slavs during and after their invasion and migration
westwards, eastwards and southwards:

There are no Eastern Roman historians attributing the ease of Slavic settlement to Justinian's
plague - which was spread all over Europe (despite its popular name and the worst scenario
occurring in densely populated Constantinople) and almost certainly affected Slavs. Further
on, based on all archaeological findings of both the Antes and the Sclavenes, we know for a
fact that equipment was standardized in a sense that every excavated grave of a Slavic
warrior feature chainmail and sword (fashioned in East Roman style), an ax, round wooden
shield, and a long spear. Some Slavic warriors were wearing belts with buckles adorned with
Avar motifs, but they were most likely spoils of war or items of trade. The only group of
Slavs that've fought without armor was warbands of young warriors who've fought entirely
naked (barring the red paint on their body, hair and face) and in melee (the ones that were
described as being red-haired by Procopius), and some groups of Pannonian Wends who were
tributaries of the Pannonian Avars, and relying on ambushes was a part of defensive
strategies, and only against hosts that were too numerous and too well-armed, like the joint
Avar-Roman host that assailed Sclavene territories after Daurentius slew Bayan's envoys and
refused to pay tribute to him. Aside from that, both the Antes and the Sclavenes have utilized
large breeds of horses for warfare, and matter of fact, an entire host of Antean and Sclavene
horsemen was dispatched to evacuate Belisarius from Italy, which proves the
aforementioned.

The Avars have only managed to subjugate the more passive parts of the Dudlebes, as well as
parts of the Wends - certainly not the Antes and the Sclavenes, who were noted to have lived
only under the reign of their own kings like Muzok and Mezamir (Antes) and chieftains like
Radagast and Daurentius, of whom the latter was described as being the supreme chief of all
Sclavenes. Procopius' early assessment of Slavic social structure was just that - an early
assessment based off of early sightings of Slavic warbands that were initially considered to
have been "small tribes governed by "military democracy". As interaction with Slavs
intensified, he realized that the Slavs did exhibit organized social structure, albeit admittedly,
the Antes were the most centralized body of the Early Slavs, with a hereditary monarchy
where one king reigned over all of the Antes, while among the Sclavenes, there was one
supreme chieftain like the aforementioned Daurentius to whom other chieftains were
subordinate, there was also a mention of Sclavene kings, like Perbundos, who led a coalition
of Sclavene tribes deep into Greece. Likewise, the Avars were first invited to make a move
against the Slavs by the Roman emperor Tiberius, and later on, Emperor Heraclius would
invite Serbs and Croats from the distant Slavic northwest to liberate the northern provinces of
the Avars and have them settle all those provinces as his vassals which he'd ennoble, which
refutes any theory of the Sclavenes and Antes arriving at Southeastern Europe off of the back
of the Avars. After all, the earliest Slavic raids deep into the Roman territory were
accompanied by the enslavement of an estimated quarter of a million of Romans in every
province struck by the Slavs, and the sacking and besieging of Roman cities, which were
recorded as early as the first part of the 6th century - decades before the Avars were contacted
by Emperor Tiberius, and before they reached the most distant part of the basin of the
Danube. On top of that, the invading Sclavenes have also slain Asbadus/Asbados - the famed
Roman/Gepid general, and have also annihilated his elite army, a feat which would've been
impossible if the Slavs "only fought from afar", or worse, if they've "made no use of pitched,
organized warfare". The usage of poison arrows and guerrilla warfare was deployed only in
defensive wars against a martially superior enemy - like against the combined Roman-Avar
army during Maurice's campaign which was launched deep into Sclavene territories north of
the Danube. In the work of Menander Protector, we find the following excerpt: "This
movement of Avars against the Slavs did not only result from Emperor's envoys and the wish
of Bayan to return the courtesy unto Romans for all the gestures of friendship and help that
he had received from the emperor, but also because he held great hate for them (the Slavs)
out of personal sentiment as well. The Avar leader has, therefore, sent envoys to Daurentius
(Δαυρίτας) himself, and to his chieftains, calling on for their submission and enlistment
among tribute-payers. Dervan/Daurentius and the leaders alongside him replied: "Who is,
then, the man which basks in sunlight that threatens to conquer our strength? We are used to
ruling over others, not to being ruled over - of that we are certain for as long as wars are
waged and swords are forged". Since the Slavs acted so haughtily, the Avars were no
different in boasting. Then the scolds and insults resulted from that, being that the barbarians
are of a narrow and proud mind, and the fight broke out. The Slavs, unable to control the
anger, killed the envoys, as Bayan found out from another source. Because of that Bayan has
long since raised accusations against the Slavs, fueling a secret hatred against them, mad for
they refused him, and angry that from them he received an unforgivable insult, in the same
time he thought he would do a favor to Caesar and likewise *find a rich land to plunder, for
far too long has the land of Romans been plundered by Slavs, and theirs (Slavic) - never by
any of other peoples*."

The Early Slavs have seized and inhabited a massive territory that spanned from the east of
Germany to the Baltic and the very distant fringes of Eastern Europe. Matter of fact, the bulk
of the Sclavenes have lived on the northern shores of the Danube and were bribed by Roman
authorities to prevent them from raiding and invading Roman territories, at least temporarily.
Early Slavs weren't "monotheistic", but henotheistic. Even though Perun was their chief god,
they've also recognized the existence of other gods as well, hence why the Sclavenes and the
Antes have worshipped Perun and Veles - which also reflected their lifestyles, which were
very warlike and militarized, and subsided on animal husbandry, fishing, hunting, gathering,
bee-keeping and primitive agriculture that required the burning of the soil, therefore were
semi-nomadic. Procopius also states that the Sclavenes and the Antes shared the same
customs, beliefs, and institutions. The same was said for the Wends, which is also supported
by the homogeneity of early Slavic aDNA, YDNA and language, although material culture
would be more varied, depending on the influence of which culture they've defeated and
assimilated.

The role of the Avars in all of this is overemphasized, and for the following reasons:
a) As mentioned before, they were invited by the Romans to defeat and subdue unruly
peoples on the Danube, like the Antes (who were Roman allies from time to time as well),
and during the next century or so will be the foremost "allies" of the Romans against the
Slavs, up until Heraclius invites the Serbs and Croats (Sclavene tribes) to defeat and
annihilate them south of the Danube.
b) While it's true that the Avar hosts were initially the largest, they were in time
overshadowed by the Sclavene hosts, which have, after realizing that the Roman authority on
the Danube is no more, begun launching massive invasions that were also preludes to the
permanent settling of the lands they've seized, and initiating the assimilation of the peoples
they've defeated and temporarily subjugated.

c) Western historians tend to make the mistake of not distinguishing the Slavs, even though
primary sources from that era have noted that the Early Slavs were divided into three groups:
the Wends, the Sclavenes, and the Antes, which brings us to the point of the "100 000 Slavs"
that were part of the Avar host - most of them were Pannonian Wend tributaries of the Avars,
while the rest were Sclavene allies who, thanks to their arrangement with the Avars, were
exempt from abiding to Avar-Roman peace treaties, and would continue raiding and
marauding as they pleased, which brought great displeasure to Bayan senior and junior, and
the Roman emperors as well.

d) Slavs would've invaded and permanently settled the lands south of the Danube one way or
the other, the involvement of the Avars has only somewhat hastened of process, and by
subsequently making sure that the Sclavene tribes would form the overwhelming bulk of
those who'd settle and seize the territories in question by waging exhaustive wars with the
Antes. At most, the Avars were a strictly Pannonian phenomenon and were never masters of
the "Balkans", which is also supported by archaeology and modern genetic studies, and given
that you're made a mention of primary Roman/Greek sources, you should also know that
there's not a single one of them that claims that the Slavs were migrating with the Avars, but
that they were invading Southeastern Europe at the same time. You could potentially make
that point for the aforementioned Pannonian Wends, but not for the bulk of the invading
Slavs - who were Sclavenes and Antes.

e) Sclavenes have besieged Thessalonica five times (in 586 or 597, 604, 615, 617 and 676),
and only in two of those sieges were the Slavs assisted by the Avars.
f) The Franks, Avars and the Magyars have only influenced the military and administrative
history of the Pannonian Wends, and they're the ancestors of the Slavs of Balaton, Nitra,
Great Moravia and Slovakia, and they've never formed the bulk of the Early Slavs, but
merely a portion of the Wends (the Early West Slavs). To interpret the history of the rest of
the Slavs through their particularity is rather tendentious, and even ignorant of the full extent
of the history of the Early Medieval Slavs, whether they're West, East or South Slavic. Matter
of fact, the bulk of the Early Slavs was made of the Sclavenes and the Antes, and the
overwhelming majority of primary sources from that era were based off of peaceful and
hostile interaction with them. Further on, the military and administrative history of the Antes
and the Sclavenes was strictly a mixture of Slavic traditions and East Roman/Greek
influences, which was reflected in the First Bulgarian Empire as well, where Slavic and
Bulgar tribal and administrative traditions were integral parts of the state, yet the latter would
be entirely ousted by the Slavo-Roman model as early as during the reign of Boris I.

On the inherent politicization of Early Russian history:

“Within realms of history, several old controversies persist, taking on new meanings within
the context of today’s political and cultural imperatives. One of these, often called the
“Norman problem,” revolves around the participation of Scandinavians in the origin of the
first Russian state at Kiev. This problem has yet to be solved, though the historians of
opposing sides of this debate are now different; and the problem now involves new issues.
What is at stake is the origins of the word “Russia,” the first Russian state, and the Russian
and Ukrainian people. This debate has waxed and waned over the last 300 years. Nicholas V.
Riasanovsky, one of the most influential authorities on Russian history in the Anglophone
world, is one of today’s foremost experts on the subject. In the seventh edition of his
textbook, A History of Russia, published in 2005, Riasanovsky wrote, “The problem of the
origin of the first Russian state in Kiev is exceedingly complex and controversial. No other
chapter of Russian history presents the same number and variety of difficulties. Simply put,
the “Norman problem” is the debate over whether Scandinavians founded and ruled the first
Russian state. Proponents of the “Norman theory” have used their research to argue that
Russia would never have developed “civilization” without influences from the West.
Opponents say the Slavs developed civilization independently. Others have argued that the
first Russian state was a melding of Scandinavian and Slavic influences.
The historiography of the problem is quite old. The Chronicle of Bygone Years, which dates
from 1116 and traces the then-ruling house of Rurik from the biblical flood to AD 1110, is
the earliest known history of the first Russian state. Six hundred years later, in 1722, Peter the
Great had directed that all Chronicle texts should be collected and copied at the Academy of
Sciences in St. Petersburg for the scholars there. However, no attempt was made to publish
the manuscript for a larger audience before 1804—and even then, the publication process was
interrupted by the French invasion of Russia. It was during the time that the Chronicle
manuscripts were housed in the Academy that controversies over Russian identity and
conceptions of Russian culture first erupted. These controversies have survived, in one form
or another, until the present day, and most arguments still mention the Chronicle. Although
known to Russian scholars, the Chronicle remained unknown to Westerners until 1732, when
Gerhard Freidrich Muller, a German working at the Academy, published his translation of
certain excerpts from the book. These aroused the curiosity of other German scholars, and a
number of these, including Muller himself, August Ludwig Schlozer, and Gotlib Bayer,
worked out what was named the “Norman theory” of the origin of the Russian state. In it,
they claimed that the Varangians—a Germanic-Scandinavian people, known as Vikings or
Normans in the West—founded the Rus. Their theory was unsurprising, considering the
clarity of the aforementioned excerpts on the issue.
However, the theory was immediately subjected to sharp criticism. In particular, Mikhail
Lomonosov, an influential Russian “natural scientist” of the period, wrote a refutation which
minimized the role of the Varangians and asserted the primacy of the Slavs. Lomonosov’s
counter-conception is known, unsurprisingly, as the “Anti-Norman theory” and has been
popular with Russian nationalists ever since. In 1940, the Soviets renamed Moscow State
University after Lomonosov, in recognition not just of his work in helping to found the
university, but also of his early work in countering the Norman theory of the origin of the
Rus. In 1810, Nikolai M. Karamzin, a Russian historian, attempted to seek reconciliation
between the two sides in his A Memoir on Ancient and Modern Russia. For Karamzin, the
foundation of Russia’s present and future lay in a blend of East and West, and he
conceptualized Russia as having native roots and simultaneously reflecting the influence of
the West. Through the debates involving Lomonosov and Karamzin, we can see that the
origin problem divided scholarship among Russians even as it divided scholarship in the
West from that in Russia. In 1947, a young Nicholas Riasanovsky wrote an article entitled
“The Norman Theory of the Origin of the Russian State.” In it, he bemoaned the fact that
most of the literature on the subject which is available in western languages, and in English in
particular, strikes one as being one-sidedly and extremely Normanist, practically no anti-
Normanist works are available in any language but the Russian. According to Riasanovsky,
the Norman theory, as formulated by Bayer, Schlozer, and Muller, and developed by others,
“claimed that the entire Russian culture—religion, customs, political structure, law, art—
owed its origin and the first two centuries of its development to Scandinavians-Normans.”
For Riasanovsky, this theory could exist only as long as the ignorance of Russian antiquity
was practically complete, and as long as there was no native Russian historical school.
However, Karamzin’s Memoirs were clearly part of a “native Russian historical school.” It is
apparent that Riasanovsky wished to divide debate on the Norman problem with a clear East-
West delineation. There are obvious problems with attempting to set all historians within
these strict categories, based primarily on their political and national affiliations. Until others
took up the origin problem in 1996, twentieth-century English-language debate on the issue
can be encapsulated within the work of the Riasanovsky family (who argued for the Anti-
Norman theory), Henryk Paszkiewicz (who argued a Normanist line) and George Vernadsky
(who credits both theories). Of course, each scholar had supporters and detractors, but their
positions on the origin problem are representative of most scholarship at the time.
According to the Riasanovskys, “the Slavs of the Kievan state were the inheritors of centuries
of cultural development in southern Russia. As to culture—language, law, literary traditions,
etc.— Nicholas Riasanovsky states in a 1947 article that “in fact Russia exercised a
considerable cultural influence on Scandinavia. He later continues: At the present time most
specialists in the field of early Russian history think that the Normans formed merely one of
the elements of the Rus, which was fundamentally connected with the natives of southern
Russia and their gradual economic and political evolution. The Normans had very little to
contribute to Russia, they represented merely a minor or even a superfluous element in the
formation of that state. Riasanovsky’s article relied heavily on the work of G. and S.
Gedeonov, Russian historians of the late 1800s. Several times, when Riasanovsky referred to
arguments of ostensibly western Normanists, he actually quoted from Russian-language
sources. In 1954, Henryk Paszkiewicz, a Polish historian of the Slavic peoples, entered this
ongoing controversy with his The Origin of Russia. He continued in 1963 with The Making
of the Russian Nation. Both books concentrate on the topics surrounding the Norman
problem. Paszkiewicz largely discounted the work of Soviet historians, as he pointed out that
nationalist Communist leaders had directed them to find a continuous Slavic primacy, a claim
he never bothered substantiating. For example, in Russian Nation, Soviet scholar Boris D.
Grekov is quoted as having written in 1940 that: “It is not easy to do away with the evidence
of the Normanists. I am convinced that it will never be completely suppressed. Too many
facts have been verified by this school. Yet Grekov had changed his tune by 1942, writing
simply that: “The Norman thesis was the work of ‘fascist falsifiers of history. Paszkiewicz
highlights the fact that, in 1940, the Soviets were allied with Germany, while in 1942, these
two countries were at war. Although Grekov’s change in conclusions was timed suspiciously
with his country’s change in alliances, he was correct when he stated that the “fascist
falsifiers of history” used the Norman theory to further their ends. Adolf Hitler himself said:
“Unless other peoples, beginning with the Vikings, had imported some rudiments of
organization into Russian humanity, the Russians would be living like rabbits.
The exchanges between the Normanists and Anti-Normanists in the mid-twentieth century
were at least as vitriolic as the exchanges between their predecessors in earlier centuries.
Paszkiewicz and his supporters were perhaps less polemical than their opponents, but they
did not shy away from accusing the Anti-Normanists of a “National and Soviet ideological
bias in interpretation of the sources. The Anti-Normanists charged Paszkiewicz with multiple
scholarly transgressions, including the sin of allowing his Polish nationalism to color his
work. One reviewer, Anotole Mazour, even took the debate a step further, stating: Academic
freedom is a precious possession. If, however, some of the highly hypothetic theories assume
the form of political dogmas that might seriously affect world policies, it is necessary to call
for alertness. Highly hypothetical theories can quite easily turn into false instruments of
national policy with sorrowful consequences for all concerned. During recent decades, the
debate has continued without resolution, influenced by different, newly emergent
nationalisms. At the same time that Russian nationalist historians are continuing a conception
of the ancient Russian past much like that promoted by the Riasanovskys, the new Ukrainian
government has taken an official position that draws heavily on the earliest Norman theory.
For Russian nationalists, it is perhaps natural that they would try to prove a purely Slavic
birth for their nation, and the Anti-Norman theory fits this need. For Ukrainian nationalists,
many of whom now wish to minimize their connection with Russia, the reverse seems to be
true—and the Norman theory is convenient for them. Scandinavian scholars such as Hakon
Stang have developed theories that help to place their homeland at the pinnacle of history. In
response to Anti-Norman theorists, he writes: “hypothesis is piled upon hypothesis to create
edifices which are simply not susceptible to critical analysis, and the volume should be
recommended only with the attachment of a clear health warning.”

On the matter of the Stecak tombstones:

“The tendency of assigning non-Slavic origin to a number of elements in South Slavic culture
of undetermined origin has become a normalized form of revisionism in both Western and
native academia. In particular, the Stecak tombstone is the most afflicted by this
phenomenon, and is presumed to be of “Vlach origin” by some historians, but that is refuted
by the following:
1. Within the historical context of Montenegro, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the
"Vlachs" are just a socioeconomic (Dusan’s Law), not an economic group, and matter of fact,
all "Vlachs" in the aforementioned part of the world bore Slavic names, spoke Slavic
languages and followed naming traditions that are strictly South Slavic, which is nonexistent
among proper ethnic Vlachs of Macedonia, Greece, and Albania.
2. The names found beneath the Stecak tombstones are the following: Dražeta, Husan, Borko,
Bakulina, Hval, Nespin, Vukava, Pribil, Hlapac, Borna, Hrapoje, Krač, Bakula, Ninoslav,
Boljerad, Sandalj, Milac, Kulduk, Stanac, Sipara, Ljuban, Dragota, Sarmorad, Grubača,
Bogčin, Radača, Čeprnja, Dobrogost, Jelena, Grgur, Kukleč, Prehten, Ljubljen, Hlepac, Klut,
Dinko, Semrod, Vitača, Miltoš, Linil, Hotjan, Hotjen, Borjen, Senko, Ostoja, Bjeljak,
Stjepan, Gorčin, Tolmik, Vlk, Bokčilo, Rastudije, Veseoko, Gošt, Nenac, Muven, Vikosava,
Hlap, Dabliživ, Trtiša, Pribislav, Sanko, Godin, Klač, Obodan, Ozrko, Ivaniš, Sulduk,
Mišljen, Korija, Badača, Dabiša, Krkša, Kalija, Didodrag, Gojak, Vlatko, Hrabren, Anka,
Kosara, Toloje, Prijezda, Asta, Bogčin, Radin, Prehten, Tvrtko, Dabiživ, Miroslav, Katarina,
Vukoslav, Vladislav, Tomaš, Kulin, Matej. None of these names are either of
Romance/Vlach origin, but Slavic.
3. They’re not the oldest historical monuments of Southeastern Europe, they date back only
to the High Middle Ages, occur only in South Slavic history, are endemic to South Slavs, and
are nonexistent in the histories and traditions of the indigenous Paleo-Balkan populations.
Further on, all of the writings found on these tombstones are written in the Cyrillic and
Bosancica scripts, and all of the symbolism and motifs are predominately Slavic, regardless
of whether the overall themes are Christian or Polytheistic.
4. The theses that claim that the Stecak tombstones are of non-Slavic, Vlach origin will
inevitably be based on the belief that if something is made of stone, then it can’t be of Slavic
making, which is, aside from being astonishingly ignorant, also contradictory to the historical
and architectural realities of the South Slavic ethos. South Slavs have utilized stone as their
staple architectural resource during most of their recorded history, due to the extensive and
swift adoption of Imperial (East)Roman culture. On top of that, the Vlachs were fully or
semi-nomadic peoples, who’ve primarily used animal hides and wood to build their tents and
other forms of portable homes, not stone.
5. Western historians like Fine and Malcolm would, with tendentious bluntness, interpret the
migrations of Orthodox Slavs towards Bosnia, Herzegovina, Hungary, and the dominions of
the Hapsburg as that of proper “Vlachs”, and solely on the basis of them being referred to as
“Vlachs”, while ignoring that by the time of Dusan’s reign, the term “Vlach” was used as an
exonym to describe all pastoral, Orthodox, Slavic populations, and in the case of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Hapsburg territories, Hungary and Herzegovina, those were primarily Serbs.
All of this is further corroborated by genetic studies, which have revealed that Yugoslavs are
still primarily Slavic in terms of Y-DNA and aDNA (The modeled ancestral genetic
component of Balto-Slavs among South Slavs was between 55-70%). On top of that, there are
no direct sources that support a mass migration or colonization of South Slavic lands by the
Vlachs”, as per the work of Illona Czamanska and Aleksa Djilas.”

On the matter of the derivation of the Slavic titles of Zupan and Ban:
“Župan is a noble and administrative title used primarily in Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Serbia,
Hungary, Bulgaria and Slovakia, and states that were influenced by Slavic peoples and
culture, like Hungary and Romania. It was (and in Croatia still is) the leader of the
administrative unit župa (or zhupa, županija). The term in turn was adopted by the
Hungarians as ispán and spread further. It derived/originated from the Common Slavic word
župa, which mean "district, small administrative region, and it was preserved primarily
among the Slavic peoples and their neighbours who were under their influence. The title had
a widespread distribution, and did not always had a concrete institutional definition, even
though it was primarily an administrative/territorial title and an integral part of Slavic tribal
organization. Slavic tribes were divided into fraternities, each including a certain number of
families, and the territory inhabited by a tribe was a župa, and its leader was the župan, like
the župans of the First Bulgarian Empire who are traditionally seen as Slavic chiefs, or
leaders of a local tribe and district.
In written history, all records of that title point to Slavs, like the charter of Kremsmünster
abbey, by Bavarian duke Tassilo III in 777 AD, in which the monastery was granted to/by a
group of Slavs, headed by the chieftains Taliup and Sparuna, whose abode lied beneath the
boundaries reported under oath by the iopan/zupan Physso, the ζουπανος (zoupanos) on a
silver bowl found at Veliki Preslav, capital of First Bulgarian Empire (893–972), and zhupan
in Greek stone inscriptions and Cyrillic alphabet (Codex Suprasliensis), the zuppanis in Latin
charter of St. George's church at Putalj by Croatian duke Trpimir in 852 AD, the Slavic,
generally considered of White Croats, title of king's deputy mentioned by Ibn Rusta in the
10th century, the sūt.ğ or sūb.ğ, according to Constantine VII in his 10th century work De
Administrando Imperio, Croats, Serbs and other Slavic nations of Dalmatia had the
ζουπάνους (zoupanous), "Princes, as they say, these nations had none, but only župans,
elders, as is the rule in the other Slavonic regions", also the Croatian state was divided in 11
ζουπανίας (zoupanias) administrative regions, with additional three ruled by βοάνος (boanos)
or μπάνος (b/mpanos) (Ban), and is individually mentioned ζουπανου (zoupanou) Beloje of
Travunia, later among Serbs it also temporary became a title for supreme leader ζουπανος
μεγας (zoupanos megas, Grand Župan).
Even though the Slavic origin of the aforementioned title is irrefutable, there are still some
theses and premises that further the belief that the word zupan is of Iranian or Turkic/Avar
origin, but those theses are, aside from being doubtful and dismissed by most modern
scholars, also poorly substantiated. On the basis of preserved toponyms which are
etymologically related to the title župan, like Županovo kolo in Novgorod, Russia, and
Župany kolo in Ukraine, as well it was spread in Slavic languages which were not in contact
with the Avar language (South Slavic, East Slavic and most West Slavic languages), the
assumption that it was of Avar origin is, yet again, highly doubtful and dismissed as it occurs
in a wider area than the area where some Slavs (Pannonian Wends) and Avars have lived
together (the Pannonian Basin), neither was it used by Turkic peoples in general.
Ban, just like Zupan, was a noble title used in several states in Central and Southeastern
Europe between the 7th century and the 20th century, primarily in Croatia and Bosnia. From
a purely historical perspective, the first recorded mention of the title ban is in the 10th
century by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, in the work De Administrando Imperio, in the
30th and 31st chapter "Story of the province of Dalmatia" and "Of the Croats and of the
country they now dwell in", dedicated to the Croats and the organisation of their medieval
state. The 30th chapter proceeds to meticulously describe the administrative and territorial
division of Medieval Croatia, and how it was divided in eleven ζουπανίας (zoupanias; župas),
the ban βοάνος (Boanos), καὶ ὁ βοάνος αὐτῶν κρατεῖ (rules over) τὴν Κρίβασαν (Krbava),
τὴν Λίτζαν (Lika) καὶ (and) τὴν Γουτζησκά (Gacka). In chapter 31, we’re given a description
of the military and naval might of Croatia, "Miroslav, who had ruled for four years, was
killed by the βοέάνου (boeanou) Πριβουνία (Pribounia, ie. Pribina)", which is then followed
up by a temporary decline of Medieval Croatia’s martial might. In 1029, a Latin charter was
published by Jelena, ban Godemir’s sister, in Obrovac, for donations to the monastery of St.
Krševan in Zadar. The charter introduces her as as "Ego Heleniza, soror Godemiri bani”. In
the 12th century, the title of ban was mentioned in the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja and
in the Supetar Cartulary. John Kinnamos wrote the title in its greek form μπάνος (mpanos),
while in the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, which is dated to the 12th and 13th century, the
Latin redaction is written as banus, banum, bano, while the Croatian redaction only features
the word ban. The Supetar Cartulary contains valuable information from the 11th to the 12th
century, but the specific writings about the bans are dated to the late 13th and early 14th
century, a transcript of a preceding document, and it states that there were seven bans and that
they were elected by the six of twelve Croatian noble tribes.
Etymologically speaking, the title’s origin is undetermined. According to the oldest thesis
authored by Pavel Safarik, it’s supposed to derive from the Avar name Bayan, which is why
some scholars assume that the personal name was a possible misinterpretation of a title, but
Bayan already bore the title of khagan, and aside from that, the title of ban was never used by
the Avars, or Turkic people in general, neither were they attested in historical sources as
being of Avar/Turkic origin, which renders the Avar theory as obsolete. Simply put, the
origin of the Avar theory is only found in the work of the aforementioned author, whose
thesis has, unfortunately, shaped the work of generations of historians. In his work Slovanské
starožitnosti (1837), and later Slawische alterthümer (1843) and Geschichte der
südslawischen Literatur (1864), he was the first to connect the ruling title of ban, of
undetermined origin, which ruled over župas of today’s Lika region, with the Pannonian
Avars. He further assumes (based solely on tendentious interpretation of the DAI’s 30th
chapter) that the Avars have lived on that particular territory. However, modern historians
and archaeologists have proven the opposite, that Avars have never lived in Dalmatia proper
(including Lika). Šafárik assumed that the Avars have used the word “Bayan” to describe
their governor, and based on that had concluded that the title of “ban” had derived from the
aforementioned name, while omitting the more likely theory (within the context of the
argument of given names being the derivation of titles) that the title of ban has a Slavic
origin, and that it derived from the Slavic name “Bojan” which means “warrior”, which in
return had derived from the word “boj” which means war – a detail of vital importance, since
Bans were primarily military governors and one of their main tasks was to maintain a
standing army within a banate and to defend its borders. His thesis would later be endorsed
by a myriad of historians by antonomasia, and both South Slavic titles of ban and župan were
suddenly being attested as titles of Avar/Turkic origin, even though both of these titles were
originally only used by Slavs, and were never used by Avars, or any other Turkic peoples,
plus their etymology doesn’t originate from any Turkic languages. Further on, based on the
aforementioned primary sources like the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja and Supetar
Cartulary, the title of ban in Medieval Croatia can only be awarded to those who’re of noble
blood and of native Croatian (Slavic) origin. We find the same exact confirmation in the
Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja; Latin redaction; Unaquaque in provincia banum ordinavit,
id est ducem, ex suis consanguineis fratribus ([Svatopluk] in every province a ban is
allocated, and they were duke's consanguin brothers), the Croatian redaction stresses that all
bans must be natives (Croatian, Slavic) and nobility. Also, the first and fairly late mid-10th
century reference of the title of “ban” is yet another rebuttal to add to the fact that it wasn’t
inherited or adopted from the Avars, but was an integral part of Slavic administrative and
titular lexicon. Last but not least, Early South Slavs were never politically or militarily
subjugated by the Avars, and that is attested in the content of all primary Greek and Frankish
sources of the 6th and 7th centuries, with the foremost examples being the following
excerpts:
a) Strategikon of Maurice: "...being freedom-loving, they are in no way inclined to become
slaves or to obey, especially in their own land." (Strategikon of Maurice, ed. prep. V. V.
Kuchma. SPb., 2004, p. 189”.
b) “Daurentius is the first Slavic chieftain to be recorded by name, by the Byzantine historian
Menander Protector, who reported that the Avar khagan Bayan I sent an embassy, asking
Daurentius and his Slavs to accept Avar suzerainty and pay tribute, because the Avars knew
that the Slavs had amassed great wealth after repeatedly plundering the Byzantine Balkan
provinces. Daurentius reportedly retorted the following:
1. "Others do not conquer our land, we conquer theirs [...] so it shall always be for us, and
“who is, then, the man which basks in sunlight that threatens to conquer our strength?
2. “We are used to ruling over others, not to being ruled over - of that we are certain for as
long as wars are waged and swords are forged.”
Matter of fact, Serbs and Croats, two South Slavic peoples (earliest bearers of the title of
ban), were tasked with exterminating the Avars south of the Danube during the reign of
emperor Heraclius, and with settling all provinces liberated from the Avars as his vassals,
whom he would then ennoble. This refutes the possibility of them ever adopting the titles of a
people whom they’ve defeated and disposed of. The DAI even provides detail of how the
Croats have defeated the Avars and liberated Dalmatia from them: “"(...) Therefore everyone,
who would like to do research about Dalmatia, can read herein about the way how the Slavic
peoples took it. The Croats with their families came to Dalmatia and found the Avars in
possession of that land. After fighting against each other for some time, the Croats defeated
the Avars, partially murdered them and partially forced them to submissiveness. Since that
moment the country was seized by the Croats. (...)"
It should also be noted that the Hungarians would inherit the title of ban only after they’ve
conquered Slavonia and Croatia, and title’s usage would only be limited to the southern parts
of Hungary – the realms of their Slavic vassals, which further champions the theory of the
Slavic origin of the aforementioned title. Beyond the Slavic and Avar theories, there’s the
Germanic and Greek theory of the title’s origin. The Germanic theory is based on the thesis
that the title’s functions have directly derived from a Germanic medieval term ban or
bannum, the royal power that grants one the ability to raise and to exercise justice which
would later be delegated to the counts (widely used in Francia). The Greek theory states that
Croatian rulers have adopted the Byzantine model of territorial administration known as the
bandon, thus the title of ban and territorial/administrative unit of a banate.
All these theories nonwithstanding, the title of ban was worn almost entirely by Croats, and
as we’ve stated earlier, all primary sources have shown that the title of Ban could originally
only be worn by someone from one of the twelve Croatian tribes according to the Supetar
cartulary. This viewpoint is supported by the Chronicle of Duklja; Latin redaction;
Unaquaque in provincia banum ordinavit, id est ducem, ex suis consanguineis fratribus
([Svatopluk] in every province allocated a ban, and they were duke's consanguin brothers),
Croatian redaction states that the requirements are that all bans need to be natives (Croats,
Slavs) and nobility. In regards of Safarik’s thesis, as mentioned above it would later be
endorsed by a myriad of historians, and both South Slavic titles ban and župan were asserted
as Avars-derived titles, but it had only to do with Safarik’s ideology of the time than actual
historical realities. Modern historians emphasize that Safarik’s and consecutive Avarian
theses are related to cultural and political ideologizations since the 19th century which
avoided any association with Germanization and German heritage among Austro-Slavic
intelligentsia.

On the matter of the revising of Russian history at the hands of German members of the
Russian academia:

“Immediately after Lomonosov's death, his archive is sealed off and confiscated the next day.
To make matters worse, the archive will be handed over to Muller (his rival). The Russian
History of Lomonosov will be published seven years after his passing, and incidentally, only
after it was heavily revised by Muller, with whom he had argued for most of his life.
However, with great regret, the archive of Lomonosov, which was confiscated by Catherine
II is forever lost to us. On the day after his death, the library and all Lomonosov's papers
were sealed by Gr. Orlov, transported to his palace and have disappeared without a trace,
presumably destroyed. Matter of fact, a letter from Taubert to Muller has revealed the
following: “not hiding his joy, Taubert informs about Lomonosov’s death and adds: “On the
day after his (Lomonosov’s) death, Count Orlov ordered the seals to be attached to his office.
Without a doubt, it should contain papers that did not want to be issued into the wrong hands"

On the matter of Rurik’s identity:

“Marmier, during his visit to Mecklenburg, noted among the folklore, which he was
collecting, a popular legend about a local prince of Slav/Obodrity Godlav and an invitation of
his three sons to Rus. Thus, even an independent source in 1840, has discovered that the story
still being told among the now German population. It is obvious that Nestor stated that Rus
were not Swedish, Norwegian, Angles or Goths - in other words not Scandinavian. There is
no reason for Nestor to have denied the Slavic origin of Rurik as he even called the
Novgorodians - Varangians due to their proximity to the Varangian Sea (a term no longer
used) and immediately identifies them as Slavs. Aside from Tatishchev basing his work on
the Yakimov chronicle, there is yet another source of information regarding Rurik's identity.
There is a popular legend in Mecklenburg that states that Rurik was the son of Godoslav
(Godlav), the prince of the Bodrichy (Obodrity), who lived in Rarog (Neisterlitze near
Mecklenburg) and along the Varangian (Baltic) Sea. A Danish prince called Gotfried killed
Rurik's father Godoslav, and therefore Rurik and his brothers had to flee. They spent many
years 'a-viking' and eventually Rurik, as the eldest of the three brothers, collected his own
'Druzhina. The complete dictionary of Lindt Norsk-Islanska Dopnamu ock Finderate Namn
Fran Medeltiden lists all the numerous variations of Rurik - 'Rorik, Roric, Rorih, Roricus'.
One must note that in each case the name begins with 'Ro' and has no Re, Ru or Ri. The
ancient Scandinavian Sagas speak of Hrôrekr, Hroerik, Hroerekr and Rorekr. There is no
Rurik anywhere. The Pskov Chronicles under the year 1536 note: "That winter, on 27th of
February, 20,000 were in Lithuania near the town of Sebezh... and Ririk had slain the warrior
Latzky." It is important to note that in 1536, long after the Varangians and Vikings had
disappeared from the map, Poland still used the name 'Ririk'. The phonetic similarity of Ririk
and Rerik is clearly evident. There is a minor variation in the pronunciation of a single letter.
This letter imparted a sound somewhere between an 7' and an V and this duality of sound also
gave the rise to 'Skifia' and 'Skufia' (Scythia) in the chronicles.”
The Primary Chronicle:
“Although the primary function of a prince was to defend the territory over which he ruled,
his other important function was to render judgement. At the time, the Slavs needed a smart,
prudent governor, and a just adjudicator who knew the local laws and language. These
attributes could only be found in one of their own – a fellow Slav. There were four candidates
for this position:
1. 'From Polyany' (in other words, from Kiev). Obviously Kievan Rus was already known
and worthy of consideration.
2. 'From the Danube', which had very large Slavic settlements.
3. 'From Khazars', where large pockets of Slavic vassal populations have played an important
role along the Don and lower Volga rivers. They’ve had no interest in inviting a foreigner to
establish a yoke. They were looking for a ruler, not a despot and no doubt some suitable
Slavic candidate from that region must have been available.”
4. From the Western regions of the Baltic coast there were primarily inhabited and dominated
by sea-faring Slavs. To the Novgorodians, this was the most familiar territory.
Finally, if the first three candidates were Slavic, why would the fourth candidate be any
different? All evidence points to Rurik being a Slav, and therefore the only suitable option.
He was also the grandson of one of the most popular rulers, Gostomysl. Thus, he was twice
as suitable as anyone else.”
“The Primary Chronicle states that - 'Slovyensk language and Russian is one and the same:
the Varangians* have called it such...' If the invited Varangians were Germanic Norsemen
called Rus, why would they they refer to the language of the Slavs by their own name, and
most importantly, why would they call it their own tongue? The most common answer would
be that the Varangians have called their subjects “Rus”, and therefore their language was
called Russian, but the inhabitants themselves had called it Slavic because the Novgorodians
have called themselves 'Slovyenye', just as the Kievlyans called themselves Rus.”
“Purportedly, the Varangians are referred to as the vikings, a name which is thought to come
either from the Norse vik (meaning bay), or 'one who frequents inlets of the sea', or from Old
English wie, wicca (a camp). The formation of temporary encampments was a prominent
feature of viking raids. The Slavic word for something akin to vikings is “Varyag”. Its root in
the Proto or Early Slavic verb varyati, which had a specific meaning - 'to walk in front' or 'to
precede*. Varyagi or the Anglicized Varangians were elite units of mercenaries who were
used to break an enemy’s front line. Varangians and vikings weren’t a tribe or ethnicity, but a
profession. Because the Rus were the original suppliers of Varangians to the Romans, both
Scandinavians and Greeks have adopted the Slavic terminology (Varyag).” It’s not a surprise
that the Normanists harbor an unnatural hatred towards Slavs, and have allowed that hatred to
impede their assessment of Russian history, and we can see that in Schlözer’s (one of the co-
authors of the Normanist theory) view of Slavs. The following passage from his work
illustrates his hostile and hateful attitude towards Slavs: “Of course, there were people there,
God knows for how long and from where they came, but they were people without any
leadership, living like wild beasts and birds in their vast forests. They were unremarkable in
any way and had no contact with the peoples of the South. No enlightened European had
noticed them or had written about them. There was not a single real town in the whole of the
North. It is just an old wife's tale that before Rurik there had been rulers and princes in
Novgorod. Wild, boorish and isolated Slavs began to be socially acceptable only thanks to the
Germans, whose mission, decreed by fate, was to sow the first seeds of civilization among
them.” Proof that shows that he has also allowed his hatred and hostility to shape his work,
the same state of mind was found among his co-authors as well, thus greatly denting the
validity of the Normanist theory.”

On the matter of overestimating the ingenuity of Operation Barbarosa:

“The Blitzkrieg was an adaptation of earlier Prussian tactics with mechanized equipment and
not as advanced as you think it is. By contrast, the Soviet deep operation was an actual
innovation and turned the tide of the war against Germany once the Soviets were on the
offensive instead of the defensive. The key innovation was utilizing multiple breakthroughs
instead of gunning it through one opening like the Germans constantly did, dumping most of
their force into an assault on a single point and hoping that shock will break the enemy lines.
That could only work so many times without literally becoming the meat grinder tactic you
describe against a competent defense, and as a result, the Reich's "fortune" ran out at
Stalingrad in the face of competent response to the invasion, the vastness of the Soviet
interior, and the incompatibility of German mechanized equipment with the climate. Germans
need to stop being so delusional, even the successful invasion of Poland was enabled by the
absence of a French invasion and a simultaneous Soviet invasion of Poland. The Wehrmacht
had to commit a vast portion of its forces to the Eastern Front throughout the operation and
had to count on the Allies hiding behind the Maginot line to succeed. Even then, Polish tank
kills with anti-tank guns and their own tanks are generally understated, and the invasion
wasn't the cakewalk many make it out to be.”
On the matter of Y-DNA and mtDNA lineages among modern South Slavs:

“Based on Horolma et al. (2019) and Fóthi et al. (2020), the distribution of ancestral
subclades like of I-CTS10228 among contemporary carriers indicates a rapid expansion from
Southeastern Poland, is mainly related to the Slavs and their medieval migration and
invasion, and the "largest demographic explosion occurred in the SE Europe".Prior to that,
the 2006 Y-DNA study results "suggest that the Slavic expansion started from the territory of
present-day Ukraine, thus supporting the hypothesis that places the earliest known homeland
of Slavs in the basin of the middle Dnieper". According to genetic studies until 2020, the
distribution, variance, and frequency of the Y-DNA haplogroups R1a and I2 and their
subclades R-M558, R-M458, and I-CTS10228 among South Slavs are in correlation with the
spreading of Slavic languages during the medieval Slavic expansion from Eastern Europe,
most probably from the territory of present-day Ukraine and Southeastern Poland. Out of 17
mtDNA lineages, H5*, H5e1, H5a1v, H6a2b and L2a1k, U1a1c2, U4c1b1, U5b3j, K1a4l and
K1a13a1 are identified as native, while only U2e1b1, U2e2a1d, U4a2a, U4a2c, U4a2g1,
U4d2b and U5b1a1 are shared with other Slavs. In short, South Slavic Y-DNA is primarily
Slavic while mtDNA is primarily non-Slavic. On top of that, the modeled ancestral genetic
component of Balto-Slavs among South Slavs was between 55-70%.
On the matter on who disposed of the Avars, and when:

“The war with Persia in 600-614 strained the Roman resources and thus denuded the coast of
soldiers, therefore the Avars and Slavs inroads ravaged as they pleased under Heraclius (610-
640), who had called in the latter to drive out the Avars; Narona, Salona, Epidaurus, Burnum,
and Rhizinium were destroyed. In 641 Pope John IV., a Dalmatian by birth, sent Abbot John
to Istria and Dalmatia to ransom prisoners and collect relics. The Croats and Serbs
exterminated the Avars in the middle of the seventh century and delivered the province, the
Croats occupying the west to the river Cetina, the Serbs the east from the Cetina to Albania.
A century and a half later, Wonomyrus Sclavus/Vojnomir, the duke of all Slavs of Lower
Pannonia and a vassal of the Franks, would devastate Avar dominions between the Danube
and Tisza in 795, and is responsible for defeating the Avars a year later, and delivering nearly
all of Pannonia to the Franks.”

Sources: The Royal Frankish Annals, De Administrando Imperio, an Outline of the Early
history and migration of the Slavs by Karl Heinrich Menges, the Land Between: Slovenia by
Oto Luthar, and the Shores of the Adriatic, the Austrian Side, The Kustenlande, Istria, and
Dalmatia by Frederick Hamilton Jackson.

Further on the matter of Early and Medieval Slavs with the haplogroup I2a1b-Din:

“The I2a branch among Serbs, South Slavs, and Slavs, in general, is of the Din-CTS 10228,
Y3120 (and all its downstream) variety, and wasn’t present in Southeastern Europe prior to
the invasion of the Slavs. Slavs have also dispersed this Y-DNA to non-Slavic peoples, and
the oldest historical samples of I2a1b-Din are found overwhelmingly in West and East Slavic
lands, like Niem6 and Niem13 in Poland (Stolarek et al. 2018; Zenczak et al. 2017), VK542
(Gleb Sviatoslavich) in Ukraine, and VK53 in Sweden (Margaryan et al. 2019), Sunghir6 in
Russia (Sikora et al. 2017), KEII/16, KEII/52, KEIII/11, K2/16, K2/52, KR/12, and MH/9,
MH/15, and MH/16 in Hungary, former Great Moravia(Neperáczki et al. 2019; Fóthi et al.
2019), and Zub12 and Zub15 in Czech Republic (Kvítkova, 2010). However, we also have
samples from Medieval South Slavic lands, like the samples of Knyaz Batinic-Mirkovic
(Kalajdžić et al. 2019) and King Stjepan Tomas from Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
On the matter of widespread anti-Turkism in the Ottoman Empire:

“Within the ruling class, Ottomans, called themselves "Osmanlı", to note a person of higher
intelect and education with proficiency in Persian and Arabic literature, while the word
"Turk" was used to discriminate against the nomad Turkomans of the steppes and Khurasan,
and the illiterate Anatolian peasentry, and ethnic slurs such as Eşek Turk (donkey Turk) and
Kaba Turk (rude Turk) were used to describe them. Other expressions included were "Turk-
head" and "Turk-person". Within the Ottoman Empire, the term of "Etrak-i bi-idrak" was
sometimes used to denote the Yörük backwoodsmen, bumpkins, nomad Turkomans in
Anatolia. "Etrak-i bi-idrak", an Ottoman play on words, meant "the ignorant Turk". Another
similar phrase was "Türk-i-bed-lika" which meant "the ugly-faced Turk". Özay Mehmet
wrote in his book Islamic Identity and Development: Studies of the Islamic Periphery: The
ordinary Turks [Turkmen, or Yörüks] did not have a sense of belonging to a ruling ethnic
group. In particular, they had a confused sense of self-image. Who were they: Turks,
Muslims or Ottomans? Their literature was sometimes Persian, sometimes Arabic, but always
courtly and elitist. There was always a huge social and cultural distance between the Imperial
centre and the Anatolian periphery. As Bernard Lewis expressed it: "In the Imperial society
of the Ottomans the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory
sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-
speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages." (Lewis 1968: 1) In the words of a British
observer of the Ottoman values and institutions at the start of the twentieth century: "The
surest way to insult an Ottoman gentleman is to call him a 'Turk'. His face will straightway
wear the expression a Londoner's assumes, when he hears himself frankly styled a Cockney.
He is no Turk, no savage, he will assure you, but an Ottoman subject of the Sultan, by no
means to be confounded with certain barbarians styled Turcomans, and from whom indeed,
on the male side, he may possibly be descended." (Davey 1907: 209)

Historical examples: "No crown can make the king the owner of poverty and penury. The one
who belongs to the Turkic land is stubborn. The Turk lacks the ability to rule."
~Mahmud Abdülbâkî
"Allah has deprived Turks of the source of knowledge.”
~Nef'i
"Don't consider the Turk as a human. If by any chance a Turkic hand touch sugar it makes it
into poison. Don't be sad while beheading a Turk. Even if he is a father don't hesitate to kill a
Turk."
~From a poem of Hafız Ahmet Çelebi, written in 1499
"Turks, dogs, wolves, personate the wild but when the time comes to encounter the enemy
they run away."
~Kerimedin Mahmud
"The Turk people are retarded, spiritually barbarians, disrespectful, charlatans, and filthy."
~ Mustafa Naima”
On the matter of the leading form of propaganda regarding the invasion of the Slavs:

Those who attribute the success of the Slavic invasion and colonization of Roman territories
to the Avars omit the following:
a) Serbs didn't invade in the 6th, but the mid-7th century, and in toe with the Croats, and were
tasked with exterminating all Avars south of the Danube and ruling all the provinces they’d
liberate at the request of emperor Heraclius.
b) The Slavs who've invaded, conquered, and colonized Southeastern Europe were the
Sclavenes and Antes, not the “Avaroslavs”, who were noted to have been Pannonian Wends,
and were, aside from the Greeks/Romans themselves, also distinguished from other Slavs on
that very basis by Fredegar, and were mentioned only twice in all primary Greek sources,
during the Siege of Constantinople in 626, and during one of the many Slavic sieges of
Thessaloniki, where Saint Demetrius states they arrived to assist the already present
Sclavenes who've besieged the city, lured by promises of the city’s wealth.
c) By the time the Avars have arrived at the Danubian basin at the invitation of emperor
Tiberius, who had invited them for the sole purpose of waging war against the Sclavenes,
Antes, and Kutrigurs, the Slavs were already invading and raiding Southeastern Europe for
roughly forty years, and as deep as Southern Peloponnesus, Crete and the outer walls of
Constantinople.
d) All primary sources, like Jordanes, Procopius, Saint Demetrius, John of Ephesus,
Theophylact of Simocatta, and Menander Protector state that the Sclavenes and the Antes
were under the rule of their rulers like Mezamir, Muzhok, Dervan/Daurentius, and Radogost,
and weren't subdued by the Avars, and distinguish them from the aforementioned Avaroslavs
(Pannonian Wends).
e) Attributing the success of the Slavic invasion and colonization of Southeastern Europe to
the Avars is, aside from being contradictory to all primary Roman/Greek sources, since the
very purpose of the invitation of the Avars was to wage war against the Slavs and the
Kutrigurs, which is exemplified in the joint Avar-Roman invasion of Daurentius' realm, also
a textbook example of 19th and 20th-centuries German, Italian, Greek, Hungarian and
Austrian anti-Slavism designed to undermine the legitimacy of Slavic history, the geopolitical
realities of Slavic territories, and to portray Slavs as a subsidiary mass of naturally
subordinate peoples.
Sources: Jordanes, Procopius, Saint Demetrius, John of Ephesus, Priscus, Theophylact of
Simocatta, and Menander Protector, De Administrando Imperio, Sima Cirkovic, Peter
Heather, Francis Dvornik, Dimitry Obolensky, and Frederick Hamilton Jackson.
On the matter of materialist, rootless spirit and nature of the Germanic and Semitic ethos:

“As a result of reading Rosenberg's Positive Christianity, I couldn't help but notice that the
Germanic, and specifically the German people are the most similar to the Jews and that
nearly all of them are Protestants for a very good reason. They are virulent materialists who'd
do anything for material benefit, and that is why their anti-Semitism isn't dictated by ideology
and the rationale, like among Roman and Orthodox Christians, but a pathological hatred
based on an exclusively racial basis. Those who are the most alike hate each other the most.
Just like the Semites, the Germans are pathologically stingy and selfish, as evidenced by their
mythology, where their heroes are in constant quarrel and conflict, even with their own
family, to the point where they no longer know who's their enemy, their history is the history
of feudalism, an extremely divisive and complex system where everyone was divided and
lacked a strong, unifying central government. The Germans were, throughout history, divided
into hundreds of states until 1871, when they've finally managed to create a state, whose
engines will be powered by the German's inherent selfishness. In "Prussianism and
Socialism", Spengler sees the Anglo-Saxons as descendants of selfish Vikings and pirates,
and in the same manner, Solonevich sees the Germans based on known testimonies of the
German peasants (Bauers), who are so selfish and stingy that in 1945 they’ve refused to feed
their country's starving soldiers who were hiding in the woods, and in contrast, Russian
peasants would leave food in Siberia in particular places for potential fugitives from the
Gulags, because they're inherently compassionate, even to prisoners and enemies of the state.
These instances perfectly depict the Germanic spirit of selfishness and materialism which
permeates from the West. Through Protestantism, they've rationalized Christianity and have
thus paved way for the Enlightenment, and these for Communism. Whether Marx was a
German or a Jew is completely irrelevant, because he and Engels bore and embodied the
same spirit borne in the same, exact cultural environment.”

On the matter of the etymological origin of the names “Serbs” and “Croats”:

“The most prominent theory considers it of Proto-Slavic origin. According to Hanna

Popowska-Taborska, who also argued native Slavic provenance of the ethnonym, the theory
advances a conclusion that the ethnonym has a meaning of a family kinship or alliance, and it
is argued by Pavel Jozef Šafárik, Josef Perwolf, Aleksander Brückner, Franz Miklosich, Jan
Otrębski, Heinz Schuster-Šewc, Grigory Andreyevich Ilyinsky, J. J. Mikkola, Max Vasmer,
Franciszek Sławski, among others. German-Sorbian scholar Schuster-Šewc listed the *srъb- /
*sьrb- roots in Slavic words meaning "to sip, munch", found in Polish s(i)erbać, Russian
сербать, etc., and also cognates in non-Slavic languages, such as Lithuanian suřbti, Middle
German sürfen, which all derive from Indo-European onomatopoeic roots *serbh- / *sirbh- /
*surbh- meaning "to sip, to breast-feed, to flow". According to him, the basis of the
ethnonym lays in "kinship by milk" and "brotherhood in milk" which was widespread in early
ethnic groups (between both relatives and non-relatives) and thus carried the secondary
meanings of "those who belong to the same family, kinsman"; "member of the same kin,
tribe"; and finally, an ethnonym (name of a people, nation). According to Vasmer's
etymological dictionary, the root *sъrbъ is most probably connected with Russian paserb
(пасерб, "stepson") and Ukrainian priserbitisya (присербитися, "join in") in the meaning of
"alliance". Zbigniew Gołąb similarly derived it from Proto-Indo-European in the meaning of
"outgrowth, member of the family". Stanisław Rospond derived the denomination of Srb
from srbati (cf. sorbo, absorbo), and Proto-Indo-European base *serpłynąć as a possible
reference to the humid areas inhabited by the same people, which was also argued by
Stanisław Kozierowski. Another theory considers it of Iranian origin. Oleg Trubachyov
derived it from Indo-Aryan *sar- (head) and *bai- (to hit), or assumed Scythian form *serv
that in Old Indian sarva has a meaning of "all" which has a semantic analogy in Germanic
Alemanni. There are also those like J. Nalepa who related the ethnonym of the Serbs and
Croats, and Kazimierz Moszyński derived Slavic sьrbъ and Serboi (Σέρβοι) from Indo-
European *ser-v- (to protect) which had an equivalent in classical Scythian language, *хаrv-,
from which presumably derived the Slavic ethnonym *хṛvati (Croats). However, this theory
is rejected by Ukrainian scholars, and Russian linguists like Vyacheslav Ivanov and Vladimir
Toporov, because the Serbs were unrelated to the East Slavs as well the origin and meaning
of the Serbian ethnonym in the scholarship is deemed as clear and distant from the Croatian
ethnonym. In regards of Croats, the first etymological thesis about the name of the Croats
stems from Constantine Porphyrogennetos (tenth century), who connected the numerous
ethnonyms of the Croats, Βελοχρωβάτοι and Χρωβάτοι (Belokhrobatoi and Khrobatoi), with
the Greek word χώρα (khṓra, "land"): "Croats in Slavic language means those who have
many lands". The most prominent theory about their name’s origin is the Slavic one, whereas
the Iranian one is the most likely among the non-Slavic theories, which also include the
Gothic, Celtic and even Avar theories. For example, Vasmer or Trubachyov argued for the
Iranian origin, and while some of their contemporary colleagues have agreed with their
assessments, the rest, like Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński and Radoslav Katičić were opposed to it,
and would prove that the Iranian thesis doesn't properly fit the Croatian ethnonym, as
according to them, the original plural form was Hrъvate not Hъrvate, and the vowel "a" in the
Iranian harvat- is short, while in the Slavic Hrъvate it is long among others. Even though
Ranko Matasović is supportive of the Iranian origin, he still dismissed Trubachyov's
derivation because of the severity of its historical and etymological inaccuracy, and would
conclude that the only derivation which met the criteria of Proto-Slavicization of the Iranian
form, as well as historical and etymological plausibility, is Vasmer's premise but with some
alterations, where the the Proto-Slavic *Xъrvat- < *Xurwāt- would stem from Proto-
Ossetian / Alanian *xurvæt- or *xurvāt-, meaning, "the one who guards" ("guardian,
protector"), which would be absorbed before the 7th century, and possibly was preserved as a
noun in Old Polish in the form of the word charwat (guard).
The Medieval Latin C(h)roatae and Greek form Khrōbátoi are adaptations of Western South
Slavic plural pronunciation *Xərwate from late 8th and early 9th century, and was introduced
to Medieval Greek via a Frankish source.To its Proto-Slavic singular form, the closest forms
are the Old Russian xorvaty (*xъrvaty) and German-Lusatian Curuuadi from 11th and 12th
century sources, while the old plural form *Xъrvate is properly reflected in Old Russian
Xrovate, Xrvate, Old Church Slavonic xarьvate, and Old Croatian Hrvate. The form Charvát
in Old Czech either came from the Croatian-Chakavian or the Old Polish (Charwaty) tongue.
The presence of Croatian ethnonym Hr̀vāt (sl.) and Hrváti (pl.) in the Kajkavian dialect also
appears in the form of Horvat and Horvati, while Harvat and Harvati in the Chakavian
dialect. The ethnonym itself occurs only in Slavic history and language, and its bearers are
only ever referred to as being Slavs, or as being part of Slavs in primary sources, just like the
Serbs”.

On the matter of the role of Great Moravia and its endowment in the shaping of the
geopolitical self-awareness of Slavs, and the tradition of a great, united state of Slavs:

“The purpose of this article is to draw attention to the role and significance of the historical
tradition about the Moravian ruler Svyatopolk (871-894) in the medieval historiography of
the Slavic peoples. Due to its multi-layered nature, as well as differences in interpretation, the
problems of this historical tradition were notable, but have recently been discussed in detail
in a collective monograph specially devoted to it. In this essay, will focus on only one of its
many aspects, namely, the reflection of the historical memory of the "Kingdom of the Slavs"
(regnum Sclavorum) of Svyatopolk in the medieval Slavic concepts of "Sklavinia" or "Slavic
country".
Firstly, the "Sklavinia" / "Sklavinia" is used for the designation of regions inhabited and ruled
by the Slavs, and the term appears in Byzantine sources in the 7th century.
1 Homza M.; et al. Svatopluk v europskom pisomnictve. Studie z dejin svatoplukovskej
legendy. Bratislava, 2013.
2 The first Sklavinia, mentioned in Byzantine sources, was located somewhere in the area of
historical Dacia, that is, in the southeastern part of the Carpathian Basin. Probably, the first
historically noted "Sklavinia" by Theophilact Simokatta should be interpreted in this context.
See: Theophilact Simokatta. History / Ed. S. A. Ivanova // Code of the oldest written
information about the Slavs. T. II. (VII-IX centuries) / Compiled by S. A. Ivanov, G. G.
Litavrin, V. K. Ronin. M., 1995. C. 10-64. - For more details about the "Sklavinia" in
Byzantine sources, see: Litavrin G. G. Slavinii VII-IX centuries. - socio-political
organizations of the Slavs // Ethnogenesis of the peoples of the Balkans and the Northern
Black Sea region. M., 1984.
Since that period, we regularly come across this or a concept that is very similar in meaning
in historical works of very different origins. Depending on the place and time of compilation
of sources, as well as on the ideological and political situation, the concept of "Sklavinia", in
addition to its main meaning ("country of the Slavs"), acquired additional connotations.
Further on, we will not analyze all the various cases of using the concept of "Sklavinia" and
similar ones in historical sources but will focus our attention only on those of them that stem
from Slavic tradition. At the same time, we will be primarily interested in the question of how
and to what extent these Slavic concepts of "Sklavinia" / "Slavic country" relate to the Great
Moravia’s legacy. Consideration of this issue should begin with the oldest collection of the
surviving ancient Russian chronicle - "The Tale of Bygone Years" (hereinafter - PVL). The
restoration of the true genealogy of this most significant monument of ancient Russian
historiography is still an extremely difficult task, full of questions, the answers to which,
offered in historiography, were not always convincing. According to the generally accepted
opinion, the PVL was preceded by more ancient chronicles. Around 1113, the monk of the
Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nestor revised them, supplemented them and included them in his
own narrative, which he called PVL. There is every reason to believe that it is at this moment
that the chronicle acquires its structural and artistic unity. A. A. Shakhmatov formulated a
hypothesis about the so-called "Pannonian insertions" in the text of the PVL, presumably
originating from a source that was created, most likely, during the Great Moravian period or
even later in Pannonia. After some time, this Great Moravian source, thanks to the Bulgarian
mediation, ended up in Russia, where some of its parts were incorporated into the annals. A.
A. Shakhmatov combined these chronologically most ancient of passages in the PVL under
the title "The Legend of the Transposition of Books into the Slavic Language" (hereinafter
referred to as the Legend). Subsequent studies have shown that several more layers can be
identified in the text of the Legend, the oldest of which, in all likelihood, belongs to the Great
Moravian tradition of the beginning of the 10th century. Parts from, after some time, this
Great Moravian source, thanks to the Bulgarian mediation, ended up in Russia, where some
of its parts were incorporated into the annals.

3. These are lat. Sclavonia, Slavia, OE. Weonodland, arab. bilad as-Saqaliba, Old Russian.
Slavyanska Zemlya.
4. Veresovä (Malinovskä) N. 1) Vyvoj chapania geografickeho terminu Sklavinia v
historickych pramenoch 6.-14. storocia // HZ. 2008. C. 1. S. 124-143; 2) Geographical
concepts of Sclavinia in historical sources from the 6th-14th century, with an emphasis on the
Moravian-Pannonian and South Slavic traditions // Slovakia and Croatia. Historical parallels
and connections (until 1780) / Ed. by M. Homza, J. Lukacka, N. Budak, V. Kucharska, S.
Kuzmova, A. Mesiarkin. Bratislava; Zagreb, 2013. P. 60-65.
5. A detailed scientific concept of the origin, structure and sources of PVL, including the
reconstruction of the main stages of its compilation, was developed at the beginning of the
last century by A. A. Shakhmatov and became practically generally accepted. See: A. A.
Shakhmatov History of Russian chronicle writing. T. I: The Tale of Bygone Years and the
Most Ancient Russian Chronicle Vaults. Book. 1: Investigations about the oldest Russian
annalistic vaults. SPb., 2002.
6. Shakhmatov A. A. History of Russian chronicle writing. T. 1. Book. 1.S. 309-328. - From
new works, see: IN Danilevsky. The Tale of Bygone Years: Hermeneutic Foundations of
Source Study of Chronicle Texts. M., 2004.S. 85-111.
7.1/2. This oldest layer is known in historiography under the code name "The Legend of the
Settlement of the Slavs on the Danube and the Invasion of the Ugrians".
Following the above-described historical logic, we can conclude that it was the ancient
Russian chronicle tradition that preserved the oldest Slavic evidence of the original territory
of the spread of geopolitical Slavic self-awareness, located on the Danube. PVL, which
became the standard of the entire Old Russian chronicle tradition and the main source talking
about the initial stages of the history of the Old Russian state and its place in the world, thus,
would become the first source of Slavic origin containing the archetypal Slavic tradition
about the origin of the Slavs. Fragments reflecting the Great Moravian (Moravian-Pannonian)
influence are found in several places in the chronicle. At the very beginning, in accordance
with the classical method of compiling medieval chronicles, the story opens with a story
about the division of the world between the three sons of Noah - Shem, Ham and Japheth.
The Slavs, who, according to the chronicler, belonged to the descendants of Japheth, are
laconically identified with the Norics, that is, the inhabitants of the Roman province of
Noricum. This almost imperceptible insert carries great weight. Its main goal was to connect,
at the very beginning of the chronicle, the Slavs with the Danubian landmass, of which
Noricum was a part of. At the same time, the Slavs received the status of ancient inhabitants
of the European part of the Roman world, and their history was automatically incorporated
into the depths of historiae mundi. The attachment of the Slavs to the Danubian region is also
found in a number of other segments of the PVL. The chronicler (or, more precisely, the
unknown author of the Legend incorporated into the PVL) is no longer hidden, but explicitly
declares that after God divided humanity into seventy-two languages, “the Slavs sat down
along the Danube, where now the land is Hungarian and Bulgarian”. Thus, we can conclude
that the chronicle
7.2/2. For more details see: A. A. Shakhmatov 1) Legend about the translation of books into
the Slovenian language // Jagic-Festschrift. Zbornik u slavu Vatroslava Jagica. Berlin, 1908,
pp. 172-188; 2) Sketch of the most ancient period in the history of the Russian language. M.,
2002. S. XXI-XXIII; 3) History of Russian chronicle writing. T. 1. Book. 2: Early Russian
chronicles of the XI-XII centuries. SPb., 2003.S. 517-518. - See also: Avenarius A. Zaciatky
Slovanov na strednom Dunaji: Autochtonisticka teoria vo svetle sùcasného badania // HC.
1992. Roc. 40. C. 1. S. 1-15; Mayorov A.V. Great Croatia: Ethnogenesis and early history of
the Slavs of the Carpathian region. SPb., 2006.S. 25-26; Veresova N. Povest 'vremennych let
a jej koncepcia Slovienskoj zemli // Historia Nova. Vol. II: Stùdie k jubileu Pavla Jozefa
Safarika. Bratislava, 2011. S. 12-13.
8. In this case, it is not so important whether we are talking about the Great Moravian or the
Moravian-Pannonian tradition, since both go back to the same source - the Cyril-Mephodian
concept of the religious, linguistic and cultural unity of the Slavic world. For more
information on shaping this concept, see: DvornikF. The significance of the missions of Cyril
and Methodius // Slavic Review. 1969. Vol. 23. P. 195-211; HurbanicM. The Byzantine
missionary concept and its revitalization in the 9th century // Byzantinoslavica. 2005. Vol.
63. No. 1. P. 103-116.
9. "From these 72 languages was the language of words, from the Afetov tribe, the Nartsi, the
hedgehog is the essence of words" (The Tale of Bygone Years / Prepared text, trans., Articles
and comments by DS Likhachev; ed. By V. P. Adrianova-Peretz. 3rd ed. SPb., 2007
(hereinafter - PVL), p. 8).
10. PVL. P. 8.
"The Slavic country" (Slovenian land) stretched from the lower reaches of the Danube
through the territory of historical Dacia to Pannonia, ending in the province of Noricum. The
next "Pannonian" fragment of the chronicle, contained in the chronicle’s story about the
activities of Cyril and Methodius and the creation of Slavic scripture, placed under 6406
(898), is in marvelous agreement with this. It also reveals the general purpose of the Legend -
to approve the thesis about the unity of the Slavs and their fabled origin on the Danube. It
says here that all the other Slavic tribes originated from the Danube Slavs, who left their
original homeland and dispersed around the world, adopting new names. However, the
original name "Slovene" was preserved among those Slavs who did not leave their Danube
homeland. The territory of these "Danubians" is designated in several places of the PVL by
the term "Slovenian land", serving at the same time as the designation of Great Moravia,
which is also called Morava in the text of the PVL. In this regard, it is interesting to note:
The term "Slovenian land" and the ethnonym "Slovene" also appear in the chronicle’s
referencences to Novgorodian Slavs, who, despite the fact that they left their Danube
homeland, still retained their original name. Obviously, the author of the Tale and then the
author of the PVL distinguished several chronological and semantic layers in the ethnonym
"Slovene". Slovens were either the inhabitants of the Slavic Danube ancestral homeland in
the period preceding the resettlement, or the Slavs who remained during the period of
resettlement in their former habitats (that is, the Danube Slavs), or those Slavs who, having
left the Danube homeland, retained their original self-name (that is, the Novgorodian Slavs).
The same layering is characteristic of the concept of "Slovenian land", which denotes both
Great Moravia and the territory of the Novgorodian Slavs.
11. “There is one language of words: words, that are like walking along the Dunaevi, their
own eels, and morals, and scratches, and Lyakhov, and the glade, which is now calling
Russia. The first symbol is a book of Moravians, also known as the Slovenian letter, there is
also a letter in Russia and in the Bulgarians of the Danube” (PVL, p. 15).
12. In the chronicle’s article of 898: "... and the coming to the tsar, and the speech of ima:"
Behold, the Slov'nska earth was sent to me, asking the teacher sob, who would be able to
interpret the holy books; And she begged for the king to be quick, and I sent me to the Sloven
land to Rostislav, and Svyatopolk and Katslovi "(PVL, p. 15).
13. In the chronicle’s article of 898: “Eels went past Kiev Mountain, hedgehog call now
Ugorskoe, and came to Dnipru stasha vezha; bsha more walking aki se polovtsi. Coming
from the entrance and rushing through the great mountains, also called the Ugorsk mountains,
and often fighting against the living that volokhs and words. I will devour more of the same
words, and Volokhove welcomed the lands to Slovenia. Therefore, the eels chased away the
soothsayers, and we inherited that land, and when I’ve devoured the words, I subdued
ascending, and the land of Ugorsk was then blighted. And began to fight the eels against the
Greeks, and float the land to Frachska and Makidonska even to Selun. And started fighting
against the Moravians and the Czechs” (PVL, p. 15).

14 PVL. S. 8-9.
Thus, thanks to the PVL, we are able to study the fragments of the lost West Slavic source,
which captures the ancient West Slavic tradition of the ancestral home of all Slavs on the
Danube and their subsequent resettlement.
15. (1/2). After leaving Pannonia and settling the rest of Europe, the Slavs retained the
memory of their origins, and their initial unity was reflected in their linguistic unity, which
was also emphasized in every possible way in the text of the PVL. Despite the fact that their
ancient Danube homeland - "Slovenian land" – would be conquered by the Ugrians, as a
result, it will be known as the "Ugric land", the Danube still remained an important symbol of
Slavism, being the place where the Slavic consciousness was born. Having upheld this West
Slavic tradition as our own, the South and East Slavs became the heirs of Cyril’s and
Methodius’s ideological concept of the Slavic world. As a result, the Danube acquired an
almost sacred status in Slavic folk and scholarly tradition, contributing to the integration of
various Slavic groups into a single ethnic whole.
16. (1/2). We find a similar display of this West Slavic (Cyril and Methodian) tradition in the
Balkans, in the Chronicle of Priest Duklyanin (hereinafter - LPD), created in the XII century.
The LPD is the first South Slavic literary monument of the Gesta type, a kind of equivalent to
the Polish chronicle of Gall the Anonymous or the Czech chronicle of Kozma Prazhsky. Both
the Old Russian PVL and this chronicle did not come down to us in their original form, but
only in later, differing compilations, which greatly complicates its detailed analysis. There
are still no satisfactory answers to questions about the author’s identity.
15. (2/2). In regards of the matter of the existence of such tradition, see: Avenarius A.
Zaciatky Slova-nov na strednom Dunaji ... S. 1-15. See also: Mesiarkin A. 1) Examining the
Slavic identity in Middle Ages // Studia Ceranea (Lodz). 2013. Vol. 3. P. 83-100; 2)
Etnogenéza Slovanov a slovanská identita v stredoveku [Dizertacná práca]. Bratislava, 2016.
16. (2/2) On the matter of the Danube as a sacred name among the Slavs, see: A.S. Shavelev,
Slavic legends about the first princes. Comparative historical study of the models of power
among the Slavs. M., 2007.S. 151; about the place of the Danube in Russian folklore, see:
Buslaev F.I. Historical anthology of Church Slavonic and Old Russian languages. M.,
2004.S. 662-742. - According to A. A. Shakhmatov, the importance of the Danube in Russian
folk culture can be explained either by the fact that the Slavs came to Russia from the
Danube, or by the fact that the Danube tradition was brought from Great Moravia to Russia:
A. A. Shakhmatov. period. S. XIX-XXV
17. There are four editions of the Chronicle of Priest Duklyanin: 1) the oldest Latin edition,
preserved in the lists of the mid-17th century; 2) the Italian translation of the Latin text of
1601 by Mavro Orbini; 3) the late medieval Croatian edition (the so-called "Croatian
Chronicle"), preserved in the lists of 1546, made by I. Kaletić; 4) the translation from
Croatian version to Latin by M. Marulic in 1510. The Latin edition of the LPD is
substantially longer than the Croatian one: The Latin version contains 47 chapters, while the
Croatian version consists only of 27 chapters. For more details see: Mosin V. Uvod //
Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina. Latinski tekst sa hrvatskim pri-jevodom i "Hrvatska kronika" /
Priredio, napisao uvod i komentar V. Mosin. Hrvatski prijevod latinske redakcije: S.
Mencinger i V. Stefanie. Zagreb, 1950 S. 11-36; Lesny J. Wst ^ p // Historia Królestwa
Slowian czyli Latopis Popa Duklanina / Przetlumaczyl, wst ^ p, komentarze i tablice
genealogiczne opracowal Jan Lesny. Warszawa 1988 S. 8-16; Jovanovic N. Marulieev
prijevod Hrvatske kronike i ovo izdanje // Marulie M. Latinska manja djela II. Split, 2011. S.
125-168. when and for what purpose it was drawn up and in what language its original text
was written. It is believed, however, that the earliest core of the text, known as Libellus
Gothorum, was based on both the oral tradition of the Balkan Slavs and earlier written
sources, and was written in the Slavic language. Presumably at the end of the XII century. the
original core of the text of the chronicle was supplemented with new chapters and translated
into Latin. This Latin translation of the text with additions, as research shows, was most
likely carried out by Gregory, who appeared in 1172-1196. Archbishop of Bar in Dukla.
The presentation of the chronicle is based on historical works unknown to us and on oral
tradition. At the very beginning of the LPD, the author identifies the (Balkan) Slavs with the
Goths who came to the Balkans from the north, where their ancestral home was located. The
following parts of the text tell us about the history of the "Goth-Slavs" in the Balkans. The
LPD consists of 47 (in the late medieval Croatian version - 27) chapters, each of which is a
kind of literary portrait-profile of one and each of S. Slavic rulers. At the beginning of this
semi-mythical list of the first rulers of the "Kingdom of the Slavs" (Regnum Sclavorum), we
find the figure of king Svevlad. Coupled with the description of his reign, between the lines
of it, it fleshes out the concept of the aforementioned "Slavic country".
It is assumed that the LPD recorded and, in accordance with its ideological views,
transformed the ancient West Slavic tradition of the "Slavic country" of Great Moravia’s
Svyatopolk. The semantic content of many fragments of the chronicle fully confirms this
hypothesis. Thus, in one segment of the chronicle, the author defines the boundaries of the
Slavic kingdom of Svevlad: “It stretches from Vinodol (Croatia) through central Europe,
reaching Poland in the north”. Such territorial coverage approximately corresponds to the
"kingdom of the Slavs" of Svyatopolk during the greatest extent of his state’s power. Further,
in the text of the LPD, the figure of Svyatopolk himself (referred to in the chronicles as
Svetopelek) appears, who is depicted here as a virtuous and pious Christian ruler and, at the
same time, as a king-legislator. Transferring the historical figure of Svyatopolk to the
Balkans.
18. A detailed analysis of opinions about the language in which the archetype of the chronicle
was written: Mosin V. Uvod. S. 13-16; Lesny J. Wstçp. S. 16-23.
19. "Caeperuntque se utrique populi valde inter se diligere, id est Gothi, qui et Sclavi, et
Vulgari, et maxime quod ambo populi gentiles essent et una lingua esset omnibus" (Ljetopis
Popa Dukljani-na ... S. 46). In the Gothic segments of the chronicle, one can see
reminiscences from the "Getica" of Jordan. For more details on the identification of the Goths
with the Slavs, see: Alimov D.E. Ethnogenesis of the Croats: Formation of the Croatian
ethnopolitical community in the 7th-9th centuries. SPb., 2016.S. 63-68.
20 The country of the Slavs is designated in the LPD as "Regnum Sclavorum", but this name
appears in the entire LPD text only once - at the very beginning, in the prologue. In other
cases, there is only a definition of the country's borders under the rule of a specific South
Slavic ruler, but without any names to be provided.

21. "Fuerunt autem regni eius fines de Valdevino usque ad Poloniam, (includentes) tam
maritimas, quam transmontanas regiones" (Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina ... S. 44).
22. “Inter haec mortuus est rex Svetimirus et accepit regnum filius eius Svetopelek nomine.
Regnante vero rege Svetopeleko misit papa Stephanus litteras ad venerabilem virum
Constantinum doctorem, vocans eum ad se "(Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina. S. 48-49).
The author deliberately transfers the history of Great Moravia to the lands located south of
the Danube and the Sava, due to which the legitimization and historicization of the local
South Slavic statehood is carried out. Thus, it is Great Moravia that becomes the basis of the
South Slavic tradition of "Sklavinia" / "Slavic country". Starting with the LPD, the concept of
South Slavic Sclavinia was firmly entrenched in Balkan Slavic historiography, and the LPD
itself became a kind of ideological standard-bearer both for many subsequent South Slavic
historical texts and for the ideological trends that were created and developed precisely in
these regions of southern Europe. The historical concept of the "Slavic country" also contains
the oldest monument of the Polish chronicle’s tradition - the Chronicle of Gall the
Anonymous, written at the beginning of the 12th century, the entire text of the chronicle. It is
believed that this was a Benedictine monk who came to Poland at the end of the 11th century.
Considering the general nature of the chronicle, the content of which shows the author's adept
understanding of Hungarian realities of that time, one can make the assumption that Gall
spent some time in Hungary before his arrival in Poland, in the Benedictine abbey in
Somodjvar. On the issue of the author's ethnicity, in historiography since the 16th century.
dominates the thesis about his French (southern French) origin.
23. For more details, of comparison with other sources: Homza M. Uhorsko-pol'ská kronika:
Nedoceneny prameñ k dejinám strednej Európy. Bratislava, 2009. S. 53-55.
24. This applies, in particular, to the role of the Bosnian Franciscans in the spreading of the
South Slavic concept of "Sklavinia" in European scholars (the influence of this concept is
found in the works of Adam of Bremen, Bartholomew of England, Roger Bacon (in
England), Guillaume de Rubruk, etc.). For more details see: Malinovská N. Koncepcie
geografického termínu Sclavinia v historickych prameñoch 6.-14. storocia [Dizertacná práca].
Bratislava, 2011. S. 171-228.
25. The original Latin name of the chronicle "Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum
Polonorum" is known in Russian translation as "Chronicle or deeds of the princes and rulers
of Poland."
26. For more details see: Gesta Principum Polonorum / The Deedsof the Princes of the Poles /
Ed. and transl. by PW Knoll et F. Schaer. Budapest, 2003. P. XXVI-XXVIII; Anonim Gall.
Kronika polska / Ed. R. Grodecki. Krakow, 1982. S. 2-14; Galli Anonymi Cronicae et gesta
ducum sive principum Polonorum / Ed. K. Malecinski // MPH. NS. 1952. Vol. 2. 1952. S. I-
LXI.
27. The use of the term "Gallus" as a name has long been attributed to the author of the
chronicle. However, by now it has been established that the nickname Gallus is a later
interpolation made in the 16th century, possibly by Martin Cromer. In addition to hypotheses
linking the name Gall with the ethnic origin of the author of the chronicle, there is also one
curious etymological interpretation of the name, which brings it closer to the name Havel or
the surname Gall. For more details see: Gesta Principum Polonorum ... P. XXIV-XXV. See
also: BujakF. Studja geograficzno-historyczne. Krakow, 1925 S. 78-79; Grabski A. Polska w
opiniach obcych X-XIII w. Warszawa, 1964. S. 40-45.
28. (1/2). Along with the assumption about the French origin of the author of the chronicle,
numerous supporters have hypotheses about his Flemish, Venetian, German, Hungarian-
Slavic or even Polish origin.
The chronicle was written in Latin and consists of three books, of which the last two are
devoted to the life of the Polish king Boleslav III Crooked Mouth (1102-1139), during whose
reign this historical work/chronicle was written. The first part of the chronicle covers a
substantial period of time, from the legendary origins of the Polish state to the birth of
Boleslav III. Immediately after the prologue, there is a geographical description of the "Slavic
Land" (terra Sclauonica). It emphasizes that Poland is only the northern part of this much
larger territorial unit of the Slavs. The “Slavic land” of Gall covered the whole of Central
Europe: the territory of the Polabian Slavs, the Czech Republic and Moravia, Poland,
Hungary, a significant part of Slavic Southern Europe (Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia,
Montenegro), as well as Albania (Epirus). Such a concept of the "Slavic land" which includes
the territories of the Western and Southern Slavs, is not unique in the least. Similar, if not
identical, descriptions of "Sclavinia" can be found in a number of earlier works by Byzantine
and Eastern authors, as well as in Latin sources of coming ages. However, it is in the Polish
chronicle that the first evidence of the existence of such an understanding of "Sklavinia" on
the Slavic soil proper is found, which reflects new trends in the evolution of consciousness
and self-identification of the Slavs. In it we see the birth of the idea of a single, united Slavic
world. Allegorically, Sklavinia is portrayed in the chronicle as a great mother who hugs her
progeny (that is, nearly all Slavic peoples). The roots of the Slavs’ adoption of the idea of
"Sklavinia" go back to the 10th century, and are associated with the name of the Prague
bishop Adalbert (Wojciech) and his entourage, which included his brother Radim
(Gaudentius), who later became the first Polish archbishop. The main goal of the political
project of Adalbert and his entourage was to create a Central European Federation of Slavic
peoples called "Sklavinia". Sclavinia, as one ecclesiastical province with seven bishoprics
and the center being in Prague, was to be a political analogue of "Germany". However, the
unfavourable internal situation in Bohemia prevented any and all plans from of being put in
motion.
28. (2/2) Borawska D. Gallus Anonim czy Italus Anonim // PH. 1965. T. 56. S. ¡¡¡-¡¡9;
Jasiñski T. Czy Gall Anonim to Monachus Littorensis? // KH. 2005. T. 112. No. 3. S. 69-89.
29. Chronicle describes the fate of Boleslav III Crooked Mouth to 1113, in connection with
what is believed to have been authored in the 1120’s (XII century).
30. "Igitur terra Sclauonica ad aquilonem hiis regionibus suis partialiter divisivis sive
constitutivis existens a Sarmaticis, qui et Gete vocantur, in Daciam et Saxoniam terminatur, a
Tracia autem per Ungariam (ab) Hunis, qui et Ungari dicuntur -thiam in Bauariam diffinitur;
ad austrum vero iuxta mare mediterraneum ab Epyro derivando per Dalmatiam, Crouaciam et
Hystriam finibus maris Adriatici terminata, ubi Venetia et Aquileia consistit, ab Hytalia
sequestratur "(Gesta Principum Polonorum ... P. 6-8).

31. For a detailed analysis, see: Veresová N. Vyvoj chapania geografického termínu
Sklavínia v his-torickych prameñoch 6.-14. storocia. S. 136-141.
32. Vojtech’s plan of Sclavinia, which later became part of Otto III's plan to create a
universal Christian monarchy, was analyzed in detail by J. Fried: Fried J. Otton III i Boleslaw
Chrobry. Warszawa, 2000. See also: DvornikF. The Slavs at the crossroads: Federation in
Otto III's Roman Empire or the formation of a Great Slav State? // Dvornik F. The Slavs:
Their early history and civilization. Boston, 1956. P. 256-270.
33. A. Grabsky believed that the concept of "Sklavinia" as an ethnogeographic formation of
the Western Slavs was born as a result of a natural reaction to the process of ethnicization.
The ascension of young Otton III to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire changed the
bishop of Prague’s plans. Emperor Otton III supplemented the concept of imperial
universalism inherited from his predecessors with the idea of the unity of the Christian world,
including four equivalent provinces in his brilliant Renovatio imperii Romanorum plan - Gaul
(Gallia), Germany (Germania), Italy (Roma) and Sclauinia (Sclauinia). In addition to the
emperor, the protagonists of Renovatio were Bishop Adalbert, who became, figuratively
speaking, the spiritual father of the province of Sklavinia, his brother Radim (Gaudentius)
and the Polish prince Boleslav the Brave, who was obviously supposed to play the role of the
secular ruler of the Sklavinia.
However, this project wasn’t implemented. Bold plans to transform the European space were
cut short with the early death of the young emperor. Despite the fact that both of these
initiatives - the initial project of Adalbert and the subsequent joint project of Adalbert and
Otto III - remained only theoretical, they still had a great influence on further development. It
should be emphasized that as the concept of the "Slavic Federation" of St. Adalbert and the
concept of the province of "Sklavinia" by Otto III demonstrated the readiness of the Slavs of
Central Europe to actively participate in political life and, united, to act as an equal partner
and deterrent of Germany. Interestingly, in this case, the initial impulse also came out of their
environment, which was directly related to Great Moravia’s tradition, this brings us back to
our earlier thought, that the idea of the original unity of all Slavs and their homeland on the
Danube was first formulated and conceptually enshrined in Great Moravia. If we agree with
the thesis that this ideological legacy of Great Moravia’s and Cyril and Methodius’s tradition
through Bulgaria has reached even the Ancient Rus, then being subsequently incorporated
into the PVL, then the preservation of this ideological heritage in the environment where it
originated in due time, and its activities were subsequently expanded by Adalbert and
Wojciech. Due to the significant influence and broad connections of Adalbert in the spiritual
and political elite of Europe, he could well have attempted to pragmatically use the potential
of his genius loci when forging his own plan for the Christian political unification of the
Slavs. Although the creation of the province of Sklavinia, conceivable as a new Central
European political formation, a of counterbalance to Germany, was never implemented, the
process of (Western) Slavic political emancipation launched by this very idea nevertheless
acquired at the turn of the 10th-11th centuries, with real outlines. Analyzing the content of
the Chronicle of Gallus Anonymous, we can safely say that the very idea of "Sklavinia"
continued to play a stimulating role in the political plans of the Slavic rulers.
The anachronistic geographic concept of a "Germany", which existed since the X century,
began to denote a country (geographical area) inhabited by Germans / Germans. This
"Germanization of Germany" provoked a similar process of formation of the "Sklavinia".
See: Grabski A. Polska w opiniach obcych ... S. 81-109; see also: Wolfram H. New peoples
around the year 1000 // Europa around the year 1000 / Ed. by P. Urbanczyk. Warszawa 2001.
P. 391-409.
34. For more details see: MalinovskáN. Vyvoj koncepcie Sclavinia v 12. storocí a jej reflexia
v pol'skej kronike Galla Anonyma // Nové historické rozhl'ady. 2015. Roc. 5. C. 1. S. 43-53.
35. Although the creation of the Slavic federation did not materialize, the direct result of
these new political sentiments was the transformation of the Central European
The next crucial historical work, which reflected the Slavic concept of Sklavinia, as if
genetically related to Great Moravia’s tradition, is the so-called Hungarian-Polish Chronicle.
Based on the results of recent textual studies, we can conclude that it was authored in the
early 13th century (1220’s, 1230’s) during the reign of the Hungarian king Endre II. Earlier it
was believed that the chronicle was compiled at the court of the second son of Endre II, Duke
of Galicia, Koloman, and his Polish wife Salome in the territory of Slavonia. However, recent
studies by Martin Homza and Ryszard Grzesik have provided convincing arguments in favor
of the Slovak (Spiš) origin of the chronicle. The likely place of creation of the chronicle is
Spiš Castle together with the Spiš Chapter, which were the centers of medieval Spis and the
power of the Arpads in the northeastern territories of the Kingdom of Hungary. It was here
that Koloman, who was not only the Duke of Galicia (in Hungarian sources - Rex Galiciae et
Lodomeriae), but also the Slavonian-Croatian duke, and the duke of Spis, spent a substantial
amount of time with his wife Salome. In its general orientation, the Hungarian-Polish
Chronicle differs significantly from other medieval Hungarian chronicles. On one hand, it
should be viewed as a text created to substantiate the historical right of the Arpad dynasty to
their new Danubian homeland. On the other hand, the chronicle's strong Slavic orientation is
surprising. It is no coincidence that it was at the turn of the first and second millennia that the
process of crystallization of three new state formations - the Czech Republic, Hungary and
Poland, which, a little over a century ago, were part of the “Slavic Land” of Svyatopolk
Moravsky, reached its culmination here. A common feature of the policy of the rulers of
these three states was their attempts to consolidate their sovereignty, in particular, through the
creation of an autonomous church organization and the acquisition of a hereditary royal title.
So, the Polish prince Boleslav the Brave, like the Hungarian ruler Istvan, who ruled over an
ethnically mixed Slavic-Hungarian population, simultaneously claimed the inheritance of
Svyatopolk - the anointing by the Pope and the coronation. Their competition for the crown
ended with Istvan's victory and subsequent military clash with each other, about which we
find fleeting references in several Polish and Hungarian chronicles. For more details see:
VeresováN. Boleslav Chrabiy a Slovensko // Medea. Studia Mediaevalia et Antiqua. 2001 S.
16-30; cm. See also: Cha-loupecky V. Radla-Anastasius, druh Vojtechùv, organizer uherské
církve // Bratislava. Casopis ucené spolecnosti Safáfikové. 1927. Roc. 1. S. 270-328;
Wolfram H. New peoples. P. 395-399. - For the royal title of Svyatopolk of Moravian see in
detail: Homza M. K argumentácii o král'ovskom titule Svätopluka I. (f894) // Homza M; et al.
Svatopluk v europskom pisom-nictve ... S. 142-161. organizer uherské církve // Bratislava.
Casopis ucené spolecnosti Safáfikové. 1927. Roc. 1. S. 270-328; Wolfram H. New peoples.
P. 395-399. - About the royal title of Svyatopolk of Moravian see in detail: Homza M. K
argumentácii o král'ovskom titule Svätopluka I. (f894) // Homza M; et al. Svatopluk v
europskom pisom-nictve ... S. 142-161. organizer uherské církve // Bratislava. Casopis ucené
spolecnosti Safáfikové. 1927. Roc. 1. S. 270-328; Wolfram H. New peoples. P. 395-399. -
For the royal title of Svyatopolk of Moravian see in detail: Homza M. K argumentácii o
král'ovskom titule Svätopluka I. (f894) // Homza M; et al. Svatopluk v europskom pisom-
nictve ... S. 142-161.
36. Grzesik R. Kronika wçgiersko-polska. Z dziejów polsko-wçgierskich kontaktów
kulturalnych w sredniowieczu. Poznan 1999; Homza M. Uhorsko-pol'ská kronika:
Nedoceneny prameñ k de-jinám strednej Európy. Bratislava, 2009.
37. For more details see: Homza M. 1) Mulieres suadentes: Presviedcajúce zeny. Bratislava,
2002; 2) Uhorsko-pol'ská kronika. S. 15-19; Grzesik R. 1) Kronika wçgiersko-polska. Z
dziejów polsko-wçgierskich kontaktów kulturalnych w sredniowieczu. Poznan 1999; 2)
Zywot Sw. Stefana króla Wçgier czyli Kronika wçgiersko-polska. Warszawa 2003 S. 18-31.
38. For more details see: Procházková N. Koloman Halicsky: Arpádovsky panovník prvej
polovice 13. storocia [Dizertacná práca]. Bratislava, 2015.
Polish Chronicle” also contains an anti-German orientation, which, given the very origin of
Koloman and the influence of the Andex-Meran dynasty, does not seem entirely clear.
However, if we attribute the initiative in creating the chronicle and the leading role in
political projects associated with the name of Koloman, his wife Salome and her entourage
(in which there was a noticeable presence of Franciscans since the beginning of the 1330s),
then the whole picture would appear far more logical.
Speaking about the sources used by the author of the "Hungarian-Polish Chronicle", it is
necessary, first of all, to note a kind of "metasource" of the entire medieval Hungarian
chronicle tradition - the "Gesta Hungarorum vetera" of the second half of the 11th century
that have yet to be revealed to us, about the existence of which we know thanks to references
to them in later Hungarian chronicles. It is also worth noting the parts borrowed from the
"Life of St. Stephen the Saint" edition of Hartwick, and also news, apparently dating back to
the Chronicle of Priest Duklyanin, which we have considered above.
Turning to the question that is of interest to us about the usage of the image of the "Kingdom
of the Slavs" of Svyatopolk as an example of "Sklavinia" the "Hungarian-Polish Chronicle",
the following should be noted, first of all. At the very beginning of the story, the author of the
chronicle explains that the Hungarians adopted Christianity in their new country -
"Sclavonia". In this case, it is clear that we are talking about the territory of Pannonia. At first
glance, such a presentation of official historical memory by the Arpads themselves may seem
surprising: the identification of Sclavonia with Hungary, together with the theory of a
hospitable meeting of Hungarians by the inhabitants of the Carpathian Basin, is a unique
phenomenon for medieval Hungarian historiography. It is likely that the "Hungarian-Polish
Chronicle" reflects in this case the ancient Slavic Danubian homeland.
39. For more information on Koloman's plan to transform the South Slavic parts of the
Kingdom of Hungary into an ecclesiastical-administrative unit called Sklavinia, see
Procházková N. Koloman Halicsky ... passim.
40. It is worth noting that Koloman's title also changed in the late 1220s and early 1230s,
when he acquired the title "dux tocius Sclauoniae". Of course, there is no need to go into
speculation and absolutize the influence of Salome on Koloman, but one should not ignore
her contribution to the political imaginatio of her husband.

41. See the analysis of sources of the Hungarian-Polish Chronicle: Homza M. Uhorsko-
pol'ská kro-nika ... S. 28-40; Grzesik R. Zywot Sw. Stefana ... S. 31-37. - Regarding the main
source base of the Hungarian-Polish Chronicle, RF Kaindl formulated a concept according to
which parts of earlier chronicles were included in it. According to the researcher, in addition
to the already mentioned "Gesta Hungarorum vetera", these could also be the "Nitran
Chronicles" that have not come down to us (Kaindl RF Studien zu den ungarischen
Geschichtsquellen // Archiv für österreichische Geschichte. 1894. Bd 81. S. 325-345) ...
42. See: GrzesikR. Zywot Sw. Stefana. S. 31-37.
43. The use of South Slavic, more precisely, the Slavonic-Croatian historical tradition is
clearly manifested in the news of the Hungarian-Polish Chronicle on the legendary ruler
Casimir, which goes back to the Croatian legend of King Zvonimir. See: M. Homza Uhorsko-
pol'ská kronika ... S. 50-54.
44. “Iesus Christus, qui est Deus omnipotens, non in propria regione, in aliena, quae
Sclavonia nominatur, post multos labores et aerumpnas ad fidem catholicam mirabili sua
providentia vocare dignatus est” (Chronica Hungaro-Polonica / Ed. B. Karácsonyi // Acta
Historica Universitatis Szegediensis de Atila József nominatae. 1969. Vol. 26. P. 9).
The("Slovak") tradition, thus leaving no room for an official interpretation of the royal court
lineage. Further on, the chronicle follows the information on the legendary leader of the
Hungarians, Attila (Aquila), who, wandering around Italy, came to the borders of Sclavonia
and Croatia, to the Sava and Drava rivers, where he conquered the local population, led by
the princes of Croatia and Sclavonia (Chrwacie et Sclavonie). Historians disagree on what the
term "Sclavonia" means in this case: it could be either Slavonia or Pannonia. In order to
understand the content of this fragment, it is necessary to go back a few paragraphs, where
the author of the Hungarian-Polish Chronicle expounds the South Slavic legend about the
brave and pious ruler of Sclavonia and Croatia, Casimi, who was killed by his own people.
The Hungarian chronicler included this motive of the struggle between "good and evil" in the
plot structure of his work, with which he tried to legitimize the rights of the Hungarian
dynasty to a "new homeland". In accordance with the belief that good always triumphs over
evil, Attila, as an instrument of God's justice, conquered the country of Casimir and decided
to settle there. Bypassing the conquered areas ("Sklavonia and Croatia"), he crossed the
Danube and the Tisza, and the lands he found there became a new home to his people, and
since then on it was called Hungary. We see that the author, yet again, through a few almost
imperceptible references, connects "Sclavonia" with Hungary. We find a similar parallel in
the next fragment, that speaks of "Atilla’s descendant" - Bela, who, after the death of his
father Koloman, travels from Croatia through Aquileia "to his land of Sclavonia" (in terram
suam Sclavoniam), renamed by his ancestors to Hungary. In this case, we are already faced
with the identification of Sclavonia with Hungary expressis verbis.
There are several more arguments in favor of the opinion that in the text of the Hungarian-
Polish Chronicle Sclavonia is unambiguously referred to as the territory of historical
Hungary. The chronicle’s text clearly shows that this "Sklavonia" is not a designation for the
later Croatian Slavonia. "Sklavonia" is referred to as a substantially larger territorial unit,
which also includes the South Slavic lands. In such a concept of a Sclavonia, it is easy to see
a reminiscence of the great "Slavic country" of Great Moravia’s Svyatopolk, whose successor
in the territorial sense was the Kingdom of Hungary.
45. "Movit autem inde se exercitus suos, et pertransivit Alpes Carintie, et venit in términos
Chrwacie et Sclavonie inter fluvios Savam et Dravam: ibique occurrerunt ei principes
Chrwacie et Sclavonie" (Chronica Hungaro-Polonica. P. 16).
46. On King Casimir, whose figure in the text of the Hungarian-Polish Chronicle is the result
of the contamination of several historical figures (Svyatopolk Moravsky, Zvonimir, etc.) see:
HomzaM. Uhorsko-pol'ská kronika ... S. 54-56, 125-126.
47. "De victoria Aquilae Regis (...) et meum electum regem Kazimirum, qui michi in
Sclavonie et Chrwacie partibus toto cordis ac mentis affectu fideliter in saeculo servivit, in
eis, qui ipsum tradendo turpiter Polo occiderunt". 15).
48. “Iste autem mortuo patre regressus est in civitatem suam Aquileiam et ibi accepit uxorem
Gre-cam de Constantinopolitano imperio. Inde autem movens se venit in terram suam
Sclavoniam, quam atavus suus Ungariam appellavit "(Chronica Hungaro-Polonica. P. 20-21).
49. For further details, see: MalinovskáN. Koncepcie geografického termínu Sclavinia ... S.
179-185.
50. Homza M. Este raz k téme král'ovského titulu pre Svâtopluka I. alebo odpoved 'na
odpoved' Jána Steinhübela, ale aj inym súcasnym aj minulym antidicosvátoplukiánom // Hz.
2016. Roe. 26. C. 1. S. 139-163.

Here, too, we encounter elements of the Great Moravian tradition about the progenitor "state
of the Slavs", which Koloman and his entourage, obviously, planned to use ^ when creating
their concept of a South Slavic Sclavonia. The "Hungarian-Polish Chronicle", thus,
responded to the tasks of legitimizing these goals.
Summarizing the review of the concepts of "Sklavinia”, the "Slavic land" in medieval Slavic
sources, we can come to the following conclusions:
The image of the "Slovenian land" contained in the PVL reflects the most ancient Slavic
concept of the Slavic ancestral home on the Danube. The origins of this tradition should be
sought in the Great Moravian ideological heritage associated with the names of Cyril and
Methodius and their disciples. In the Chronicle of Priest Duklianin, we observed Svyatopolk's
hagShu regni sciauott on the shores of the Adriatic Sea, that is, an adaptation of the Great
Moravian tradition in order to legitimize South Slavic statehoods. In the Chronicle of Gallus
Anonymous, we first encounter the concept of the "Slavic country", which was a reflection of
the political project of a single Central European "Sklavinia", close to real implementation in
the political arena of Europe at the turn of the X-X1 centuries.

In the Hungarian-Polish Chronicle, we encounter the identification of Sclavonia with

Hungary. Here, just as it was observed in the Chronicle of Priest Dukljanin, the history of
Great Moravia was appropriated, as a result of which the Kingdom of Hungary historically
legitimized its domination of the Pannonian/Carpathian Basin. At the same time, as shown
above, all the listed concepts of Sklavinia had one common denominator - the memory of the
Great Moravia of Svyatopolk. Thus, we can conclude that just as in the historical memory of
the Slavs the Danube was associated with the origin of the Slavic people, Great Moravia was
associated with the origin of Slavic statehood. "Kingdom of the Slavs" Svyatopolk became a
model for all future Slavic statehoods and archetypical powerful Slavic rulers.
Relevant information:
Author: Malinowska, Nora - Doctor of History, Assistant, Institute of Social Medicine and
Medical Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, University. J. A. Komensky, Bratislava, Slovakia,
malinovska@jfmed.uniba.sk
Title: "Regnum Sdavorum" by Svyatopolk as a source of medieval Slavic concepts of a
"Sklavinia"
Summary: It is assumed that the "Tale of Bygone Years" has preserved in its composition
fragments of an ancient West Slavic source that was part of Great Moravian or Pannonian
literary tradition of the late 9th - early 10th centuries. These fragments bear in themselves
precious evidence of the Slavic ancestral home on the Danube River, from where the Slavs
gradually spread over vast areas of Europe, firmly preserving the consciousness of their
original unity. This homeland on the Danube, which was called "Slovenian Land", was later
occupied by Hungarian tribes and later renamed Hungary. Recognizing this West Slavic
tradition as their own, the Eastern and Southern Slavs became clear successors of the Great
Moravian and Cyril-Methodian ideological concept of the Slavic world.
51. For more details about Koloman as a ruler of the Sclavinia, see: Prochazkova N. Some
notes on the titles of Coloman of Galicia // Slovakia and Croatia. Historical parallels and
connections (until 1780). P. 104-109.
An identical phenomenon of perception of the Great Moravian tradition can be found in the
Chronicle of Priest Duklianin. Here we witnessed how the combination of the Great
Moravian tradition of Svyatopolk with the local Duklian tradition laid the foundation for the
South Slavic tradition of the ancient and powerful “kingdom of the Slavs”. A similar
phenomenon is found in the Hungarian-Polish Chronicle, where Sclavonia, identified with
Great Moravia, is regarded as the predecessor of the Kingdom of Hungary.
The last considered tradition of the appeal to the "country of the Slavs" is revealed when
considering the Chronicle of Gallus Anonymous. Within the framework of this most
territorially wide interpretation of the concept of Sclavonia, we observe the evolution of the
aforementioned idea of ethnic unity of the Slavs, which gradually acquired geopolitical
connotations (the Sclavinia plan of St. Adalbert, as well as Otto III’s plan of Sclavonia as part
of a universal Roman Empire). It also reveals the Great Moravian ideological heritage that
has influenced ideological movements in the Central European region for centuries. Summing
up the consideration of the aforementioned sources, it is possible to identify three main Slavic
traditions, which have their roots in Great Moravia during Svyatopolk’s reign and its
ideological heritage: 1) Old Russian tradition, 2) South Slavic tradition, 3) Latin West Slavic
tradition. All these three traditions supposedly fixated the historical memory of the Slavs
about their original statehood on the Danube - the river, which as a result acquired a sacred
character both in the oral and written traditions of nearly all Slavic peoples. Great Moravia,
which served as a model for a powerful and in all respects relevant Slavic state, determined
the evolution and history of most of its Slavic descendants.”

Further on the matter of the analysis of Florin Curta’s “The Making of the Slavs”:

“Professor Curta's book is interesting for its various tables, categorizations, comparisons and
other "analytics". It is also useful for the lists of sources it gives. On the other hand, it is an
academic book in that it does not provide or attempt to provide a narrative but rather breaks
various topics down along the lines of academic debates on the same. (In other words,
beginners beware). In lieu of a narrative, it provides various claims and assertions for those
subtopics that then work to support a thesis and produce a conclusion. The problem is that,
while some of this information is interesting, the synthesis is problematic.
Essentially, the claim is that Slavs did not originate in an “Urheimat” and invaded Europe but
rather the Slavic identity was essentially given by Byzantine authors to existing groups or
mixes of a group that has always lived on the borders of the empire but, presumably, under
various names, speaking different languages and following different cultures. This is a bizarre
claim for a whole host of reasons (e.g., how did the Slavic language spread? How did the
DNA spread (e.g., why do Slavs look and sound so similar)? Did Byzantines cause all that?)
that would require a broader response which his work simply doesn’t provide. Moreover, in
order to make some of these claims, Professor Curta attacks the veracity of certain sources
(Jordanes mostly) but does so in a way that is hardly effective or convincing. E.g., he claims
that Jordanes must have been using maps which, incorrectly, showed the river Vistula going
West to East (because the Slavs lived south of the Vistula according to Jordanes). This is a
strange assertion and a major stretch of the imagination. Europeans clearly live "north" of the
River Nile in that they live in an area that is north of both of the sources and endings of the
Nile. To place the Slavs in Moravia would, in effect do the same for them in respect of the
Vistula. This hardly shows a lack of familiarity with geography or using "wrong" maps.
Elsewhere, he discusses the major and, in his own words, "unprecedented" construction of
fortifications along the Byzantine border - but then goes on to say that Slav invasions and did
not constitute a threat (which is contradictory to primary sources), at that time, to the
Byzantines as their numbers were, according to him, few (he has to show that Slav bands
were small because otherwise they could be seen as movements of the presumably larger
"peoples", like Germanic lines). So, what was the purpose of these major, unprecedented
public works then? Were they projects of unionized pig farmers? One could, of course, say
that Slavs were numerically few but then one would have to show that Byzantines did not
take them seriously, which is, yet again, contradictory to primary sources. That would require
showing that they did not construct significant fortifications but to do that Professor Curta
would have to ignore the archeological record and that he is not willing or able to do. So, we
end with a bunch of contradictions. Other examples of this kind of lack of analysis or skewed
analysis abound. Nonetheless, the book is well organized and should be read to see what the
current thinking is on these topics, at least in Florida."

On the thesis that the ethnonym of the Slavs is a later, post-invasion era phenomenon:

“The ethnonym of "Slavs" and the existence of a Slavic language was a well-known
phenomenon to the Greeks, who've called the invading and marauding Early South Slavs of
the 6th and 7th centuries as the "Sclavenes", which quite literally means "Slavs". On top of
that, Procopius and Pseudo-Maurice would also write about how the Sclavenes and the Antes
as two barbarian peoples with the same institutions and customs since ancient times.
Procopius also said they were henotheistic, believing in the god of lightning (Perun), the ruler
of all, to whom they sacrificed cattle.
Menander Protector:
"(...) About the fourth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius Constantine, some hundred
thousand Slavs broke into Thrace, and pillaged that and many other regions. As Greece was
being laid waste by the Slavs, with trouble liable to flare up anywhere, and as Tiberius had at
his disposal by no means sufficient forces, he sent a delegation to the Khagan of the Avars.
(...)"
Jordanes:
"(...) These people, as we started to say at the beginning of our account or catalogue of
nations, though off-shoots from one stock, have now three names, that is, Venedi, Antes and
Sclaveni. (...) they now rage in war far and wide, in punishment for our sins (...) Though their
names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni
and Antes. (...)"
“Daurentius is the first Slavic chieftain to be recorded by name, by the Byzantine historian
Menander Protector, who reported that the Avar khagan Bayan I sent an embassy, asking
Daurentius and his Slavs to accept Avar suzerainty and pay tribute, because the Avars knew
that the Slavs had amassed great wealth after repeatedly plundering the Byzantine Balkan
provinces. Daurentius reportedly retorted that "Others do not conquer our land, we conquer
theirs [...] so it shall always be for us.”
Daurentius (to the Avar envoy): "Who is, then, the man which basks in sunlight that threatens
to conquer our strength? We are used to ruling over others, not to being ruled over - of that
we are certain for as long as wars are waged and swords are forged".
The thesis that Early Slavs would develop a Slavic ethnic consciousness only during the reign
of Samo, a century or so after their conquest and invasion of Southeastern Europe, is simply
put, categorically false. Menander Protector and every other Greek writer from that era called
the Antes and the Sclavenes Slavs, especially the latter, an irrefutable fact, consecutively if I
may add, from as early as the early 6th century. We even have written proof in the form of
Jordanes’ writing that state that the Wends, Antes and the Sclavenes were all Slavs, and that
the latter two derived from the former, in his work Getica (551): "although they derive from
one nation, now they are known under three names, the Veneti, Antes and Sclaveni" (ab
unastirpe exorti, tria nomina ediderunt, id est Veneti, Antes, Sclaveni); that is, the West
Slavs, East Slavs, and South Slavs. He stated that the Veneti were the ancestors of the
Sclaveni and the Antes, the two having used to be called Veneti but are now "chiefly" called
Sclaveni and Antes.”

On the matter of the nature of Ottoman economic policies:

“Ottoman economy policy was notoriously provisionist, all trade dynamics were based on
increasing or supplying the abundance of goods in population centres. It meant overall
centralization of surplus from different regions towards the capitals, Istanbul, Edirne and
Bursa, and a handful of semi-administrative centres such as Belgrad, Prizren or Aleppo.
Thus, including Anatolia and perhaps more significantly Egypt, most of the dominions of the
empire succumbed to the policy of feeding up Constantinople with welfare and luxury. The
sultanate might have seen it a matter of interior safety assurance to keep the capital
economically satisfied, especially after considering the city as the headquarters of famously
troublesome Janissary and their rebellions, but yet it doesn't change the fact that general
imperial policy stripped the riches of provinces out and took Anatolia back to pre-Seljuk era
when it had again been ruled from Constantinople by a resembling economy policy.”

On the matter of the summary of Yugoslavia’s foreign policy:

“The foreign policy of Tito's Yugoslavia was always unusually dynamic, conspicuous, and
effective. Even immediately after the Second World War, when diplomats were impregnated
with revolutionary charge, while the ideologized interpretation of the world and its future,
search for allies among ideologically like-minded people, and the belief in restructuring
based on a Marxist vision of the world and relying on the Soviet Union did not mean that the
diplomacy of the new Yugoslavia was not active and dynamic from the very outset. It often
remained proactive and dynamic, distinguishing itself from the diplomacies of similar
communist countries. The first generation of diplomats, including the first three ministers of
foreign affairs – Josip Smodlaka, Ivan Šubašić, and Stanoje Simić – included a great number
of individuals from civic circles, many of whom enjoyed a great reputation. Until the mid-
1950s, the Yugoslavs were primarily oriented towards Europe, while top-level diplomatic
contacts and visits were almost entirely confined to the countries with a similar social system.
Josip Broz Tito played host to his Polish, Bulgarian, Albanian, and other colleagues, but he
himself only traveled to East European countries. Europe was the place of contact between
the worlds and emerging blocs. It was the space in which Yugoslavia had a lot of unfinished
business. After the war, Yugoslavia had an unresolved border issue with Italy. Yugoslav
army units had entered Austrian territory from which they had to withdraw just as in the case
of Trieste. The Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (FPRY) either intervened or
provided military support to the communist guerillas in Greece. Yugoslav armed forces later
entered into Albania, but admittedly they were called upon by Albania to do so. They also
worked with Bulgaria on the creation of a Balkan federation. Yugoslavia was a loyal and
agile member of the emerging Soviet bloc and sincere Moscow ally in the first few years after
the Second World War. However, it felt that its achievements were greater than those of other
countries, that its path to victory was different, that the establishment of Tito's power and
selection of Belgrade as the seat of the Communist Information Bureau (Cominform) in 1947
was logical and justified. Thus, these should not only be treated as a reward but also as
recognition of a country closest to the ideal of the new world being created in Moscow.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that diplomats and politicians in Belgrade remained blind to
developments in Asia or the Near East. Ešref Badnjević, a pre-war communist and Tito's
confidential associate, was accused of maintaining contacts with banned communist groups in
Egypt where he was the newly-appointed head of the Yugoslav legation. In 1947, the Royal
Government of Egypt asked him to leave Cairo to avoid a scandal. His successor Šahinpašić
continued to maintain such contacts, which was considered unacceptable by the Egyptian
authorities, but his career ended after a year because he left the post with some staff members
and aligned himself with the Soviet Union. The Arab countries were ruled by monarchs, so
Egypt was a much less desirable ally in the Near East than Israel, which had been founded by
leftists. Yugoslavia was one of the countries helping Israeli Jews to arm themselves during
their war of independence. Yugoslavia's relations with Egypt improved only after its
revolution in 1952. At that time, the Yugoslav Ambassador was the educated and capable
Nijaz Dizdarević. In late 1952, his colleague in Syria, Mihajlo Javorski, informed the State
Secretariat for Foreign Affairs that Ali Naguib, the Egyptian Ambassador to Damascus and
brother of General Naguib, head of the new government in Cairo, spoke with admiration
about the Yugoslav struggle for independence and mentioned that the Egyptians “probably
like and appreciate the Yugoslavs more than they (the Yugoslavs) know”. Thus, excellent
relations with Egypt were established very soon after the overthrow of its king. In some other
cases. such as Ethiopia, the emperor did not pose a problem, since good relations with the
Horn of Africa had been established very early on. During the first few post-war years, the
basic idea of Yugoslav foreign policy was obsessively oriented towards the communists and
leftist groups. Due to ideological closeness, diplomats were ready to endanger normal
relations with the host country. Although the United States was the main sponsor of UNRRA
assistance, which virtually rescued the FPRY in the aftermath of the Second World War, the
United States of America (USA) was vitriolically attacked. During the first post-war years,
the lives of American diplomats in Belgrade and Zagreb were often dramatically bad and
unpleasant. As announced by US President Harry Truman to the US Congress in March 1947,
the United Kingdom could no longer ensure the economic stability and military and political
security of Greece and Turkey. The United Kindom intended to retreat from Burma, India,
Egypt, and Palestine. The Truman Doctrine was the American response to the British
decision and was directly associate with the aggressiveness of the Yugoslav foreign policy
aiding the communist-led partisan guerillas in Greece. Already in 1947, Belgrade hosted
Indian, Burmese, and Chinese communists who came to see and study Yugoslavia's
development. In January 1948, Belgrade recognized India and Pakistan. During their visit to
Calcutta, where they attended the Second Congress of the Communist Party of India, which
was held in February 1948, Vladimir Dedijer and Radovan Zogović, the then two hard-core
communist believers, talked the Indian communists into starting a rebellion and then waging
a guerilla war against Jawaharlal Nehru, who had just been elected prime minister. The duo
probably referred to Yugoslavia and their own Partisan experience, mentioning how the
Yugoslav People's Army had succeeded in taking large areas of Italian territory and entering
Austria. Thereafter, Yugoslavia continued to be militant. In the summer of 1946, Yugoslav
fighter planes shot down an American military aircraft, while the Yugoslav side was probably
also involved in the incident in the Corfu Channel when 54 British sailors were killed. This
kind of country, most loyal and most similar to Stalin's Soviet Union, militant and often
unrestrained, soon stopped being praised and serving as a model to others, while its
leadership had to be removed from power.

Yugoslavia's position changed in the summer of 1948. Its expulsion from the Communist
Information Bureau (Cominform) came as a shock to many observers. Although some of the
better analysts among the diplomats had predicted Yugoslav-Soviet misunderstandings, the
final act, which occurred on 28 June 1948, left them “with their eyes wide open” – the
comment by John Cabot, the former US Chargé d'Affaires in Belgrade and later the American
Consul General in Shangai. He wrote that he still wondered what stood behind all this and
how serious it all was. The split with Moscow was not easy for Stalin's best students. The
Yugoslavs did not plan it or invoke it, but they did not hesitate to accept the conflict.
Belgrade's first reaction was to establish good relations with those leftists who were not close
to the Soviets. The break-up of relations between the FPRY and Moscow faced the young
diplomacy with different challenges. Similar to the shifts and “differentiation” within the
country, it became much more “compact” and was abruptly filled with the proven wartime
cadres – loyal young men whose mission was to prove that the split between Yugoslavia and
the Soviet Union was genuine and real. At the same time, the bellicose and impudent
Yugoslav diplomacy was given a different role in saving the country’s sovereignty. It was
still felt that it would be primarily necessary to establish ties with those who were “more
similar”, like Scandinavia’s Social Democrats or those communist parties that had not yet
aligned with the Soviet Union in its condemnation of Belgrade. Gradually yet rapidly, it was
realized that the only possible way out was to come up with a clear policy and establish ties
with those who could be truly helpful. However, the permanent tensions – which arose from
the views that Yugoslavia was a communist country and that Western countries were still
different, despite being accepted in many respects and being important for the survival of the
country, and which lasted until the collapse of Yugoslavia – paved the way for the
establishment of relations with those countries which just gained sovereignty or were to be
created in the years to come. Something that Yugoslavia had already started in the 1950s
became adopted a little later as the norm by the West European Left that was increasingly
less concerned with the exploitation of factory workers – which was also formally abolished
in Yugoslavia where factories were worker-owned. Instead, it increasingly openly supported
emancipation movements and the struggle against colonialism and racism. Thus, the policy
that was partly born out of necessity and involved hitherto unimaginable, distant regions and
ties with those whose names could probably barely be pronounced, became the most original
and most important part of Yugoslav foreign policy, not because the country was neglecting
its relations with any superpower, but because it was exerting an influence on all other
policies and bilateral relations of socialist Yugoslavia through its role in the Third World.
Yugoslav diplomacy was joined by plenty of young people, who were then sent to the
countries of Scandinavia and the United States in order to present a different picture of the
FPRY. Yugoslavia established full diplomatic relations with India on 5 December 1948. As
stated by Nehru's sister and the Indian Ambassador to London, the Indians were interested in
doing the same thing, but at that moment they had no acceptable ambassador who would be
sent to Belgrade. The first Indian ambassador accredited to the FPRY was the ambassador in
Rome. The Yugoslavs opened an embassy in New Delhi and a consulate in Bombay as early
as 1950. The first Ambassador was Josip Djerdja, who was also appointed Ambassador to
Burma later on, just at the time when – more than ever in the postwar period – Yugoslavia
increasingly leaned towards the West. It was not easy to cooperate with this direct,
outspoken, and self-educated printing worker. However, his analyses were original and those
sent from New Delhi to Belgrade were also far-sighted. Tito and Edvard Kardelj, the Minister
of Foreign Affairs appointed after the split with Stalin, were more interested in the
establishment of closer relations with the Indians than vice versa. India was a distant and poor
country but, judging by the instructions received by Djerdja's successor, Jože Vilfan, the
efforts to continuously improve mutual relations were accepted. At the same time, Ivo
Vejvoda was sent to Brazil (he was also accredited to Venezuela) with the clear “global”
vision of a new Yugoslav foreign policy that also covered South America. Relations with
Burma, which were helped by Tito through deliveries of weapons and experience in
thwarting a rebellion, were developing at the fastest pace. The Yugoslavs were selling guns
and other weapons to a country endangered by a conflict that could be called a “quadrilateral”
civil war. All this marked the beginning of a systematic and active approach by Yugoslav
diplomacy to Asia. Although India was not always ready to cooperate with Belgrade in the
way Yugoslavia wished, the very fact that it was behind Yugoslav initiatives or supported
them turned into one of the basic principles of Yugoslav diplomacy, the minimum
Yugoslavia needed from this big country.

Leaning towards the West, searching for new Paths

The first foreign head of state who paid an official visit to Yugoslavia after its split with the
Soviet Union was the Negus of Ethiopia, Emperor Haile Selassie. Diplomatic relations
between the two countries were established in early 1952. In July 1954, he stayed in the
former Royal Palace in Belgrade and then went to Tito's Summer Residence on the Brijuni
Islands and Split. Haile Selassie used to say that having more Yugoslavs at different places in
Ethiopia meant having fewer Italians. The possibilities that opened up for cooperation
exceeded the Yugoslav potential. Relations with the South Asian countries were enhanced
during Tito's long voyage aboard Galeb in late 1954 and early 1955. This voyage was also
historic for India because Tito was the first European statesman who visited this country after
its proclamation of independence. Partly for this reason, Tito was welcomed like a king. As
for his visit to Burma, the host’s behaviour was well-nigh ecstatic. Peaceful and active
coexistence, which accepts the struggle for peace, independence and equality, was the idea
linking these three countries together. Yugoslavia also needed strong allies in its struggle for
independence. Like his ambassador in New Delhi, George Allen, who served in Belgrade
(1949-1953) and was an expert on Yugoslavia, US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles
(1953-1959) did not find the fact that socialist Yugoslavia was spreading ideas of neutrality
among the Indians particularly acceptable. At the same time, some American analysts held
that Tito was an excellent example of a communist who was open for cooperation and was
not close to Beijing or Moscow. Some American analysts wondered whether Tito could also
learn something from the world's biggest parliamentary country during his stay in India.
Tito's first trip across the ocean meant the discovery of a new world and, in many respects,
was an eye-opening experience. His stop in Egypt on the way back to Europe marked the
beginning of one of the sincerest friendships in the history of the Cold War, that is, the
friendship between Tito and President Nasser. American analysts observed Yugoslavia's
search for a “middle way” with dissatisfaction, but were still convinced that it would remain
oriented towards the West should any more serious tensions emerge. In early 1955,
Washington concluded that Yugoslavia would continue to gravitate toward powers such as
India and Burma, sensing a certain unity of interest and outlook with them and holding that
cooperation would help reduce tension, promote peace, overcome isolation and increase its
own prestige. This trip also resulted in the strengthening of Yugoslav diplomatic ties with
Rangoon. Economic cooperation lagged behind military cooperation, which was flourishing.
Burmese leader U Nu was not willing to accept military assistance from big countries, but
wished to receive it from Yugoslavia and Israel. Burma was surrounded by India, China and
Indochina; it was the seat of the Asian Socialist International and thus Yugoslavia's potential
gate to a broader Asian space. Burmese leader U Nu visited Yugoslavia in 1955, only a few
days after the historic repentant visit of Nikita Khrushchev to Belgrade in May 1955. U Nu's
visit to Belgrade and Zagreb aimed at emphasizing the unity of the two peoples and a
common peace policy. As noted by American diplomats, the arrival of the Burmese leader
was announced across the entire front page of Borba, while Khrushchev was given only five
out of seven columns in the official Yugoslav organ. A few days after the Burmese leader's
visit, Belgrade, Zagreb and Ljubljana were visited by Indian prime minister Nehru. Since the
summer holidays were just starting at the time of Nehru's stay in Yugoslavia, he was
welcomed by a much smaller number of enthsiastic citizens than the guest from Burma.
U Nu was deeply impressed with the Yugoslavs and how he was welcomed. After returning
to his country, he also wished to express his thanks to the Yugoslav Chargé d'Affaires in
Rangoon. Thus, U Nu organized a dinner for him and his American colleague. One of the
topics discussed during the dinner included Tito and the Partisan struggle. In order to
illustrate the courage of the Yugoslav people, U Nu picked up a hot pepper from the table and
pushed it into the mouth of Miroslav Kreačić, the top-ranking Yugoslav diplomat in the
Burmese capital. His tears began to flow, but he did not say anything. The Partisans' courage
was proven. There were few such moments in diplomatic life. In late 1955, Galeb set sail for
Egypt and Ethiopia. There were some (probably those poorly informed) who were afraid that
Tito could infect the Ethiopian emperor with communism. American diplomats commented
that the Yugoslavs had a problem with understanding their limitations and the fact that they
were not a great power. American consul in Zagreb Martindale said that it was stupid to
change a reliable ally like the United States for unreliable allies in the Third World. The
partnerships sought by Tito were based on the wish to remain independent. During these
trips, it also became clear that the Third World countries represented a potential market for
Yugoslav companies. Promotion of the “economic independence” of these countries opened
up opportunities for the sale of Yugoslav products. However, it was often easier to determine
or say something rather than to take action. However, some later examples proved that those
who also saw economic reasons for the promotion of relations were right. After 1955 and the
reconciliation between Belgrade and Moscow, Yugoslavia hoped that the Soviets would
change their Stalinist interpretation of communism. Parallel with the promotion of its policy
toward Asia and Africa since the early 1950s at the latest, Yugoslavia seemed to be
increasingly dissatisfied with excessively close cooperation with the West. Likewise, many
Yugoslavs were not immune to racism or simply could not understand Tito's ties with distant
Asian and African countries. Finally, nobody in Belgrade, at least those in power,
contemplated abandoning communism as the leading ideology. For such people, the West
was only the place where Yugoslavia would be exploited.

In April 1956, at the meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of
Yugoslavia (CC CPY), the highest party body, Marshal Josip Broz Tito said: “I think that we
should cancel US military aid. It was only symbolic, but the question that imposes itself now
is who are we arming ourselves against. “Josip Broz Tito concluded that Yugoslavia's
reputation called for stronger foreign policy action and activity. He also said that the
disarmament policy was not sufficiently active and that relations with India, Burma and,
partly, with Egypt were not sufficiently used in the struggle for peace, which would be
mutually beneficial. At that meeting, Koča Popović, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs,
emphasized the historical aspect of the ongoing turnabout. Referring to the changes occurring
in Moscow in early 1956 and Khrushchev's “secret speech”, Popović said that Yugoslavia
was the champion of these changes in the world and that the FPRY was in the best position to
further deepen these processes and exert influence on them. Popović also said that we should
take a more active approach to the East. Yugoslavia should remain outside the blocs in order
to strengthen the “forces of socialism”. Edvard Kardelj, the second-ranking member of the
communist leadership, said that it was now the question of forming a broader, worldwide
socialist bloc and not joining a socialist-based link-up with the Russians. All this called for a
more active foreign policy.
Washington recognized this shift in Yugoslav policy. As written by the Operations
Coordinating Board in March 1956, Yugoslavia would narrow its relations with the West.
One of the Yugoslav policy mechanisms would be to derive maximum benefits from both
sides in the Cold War. Thus, Washington could cope with this position “between” the two
worlds, which Belgrade wished to have. During 1956, Tito and Khrushchev met four times.
During Tito's second visit to the Soviet Union, the Yugoslav State Secretariat for Foreign
Affairs arranged all the details of the visit of Egyptian president Nasser and tried to arrange
for a short visit by Indian prime minister Nehru to Yugoslavia. Despite the great differences
between Egypt, India and Yugoslavia, there were several issues linking the three
governments. They did not wish to belong to any bloc, but wished to see a world with as few
divisions as possible, thereby making it safer for the small nations. All three leaders had great
personal ambitions. Nasser was interested in the Yugoslav economic model and Arab
socialism was certainly inspired, at least partially, by the Yugoslav example. India was
probably the biggest, though not best functioning democracy in the world. In any case, it
differed politically from Yugoslavia and Egypt. Tito, Nasser and Nehru met on 17 July 1956.
This meeting, which was often later described as crucial for the formation of the Non-
Aligned Movement, was differently interpreted in these three countries. All sides had
different ideas. Indian prime minister Nehru was dissatisfied because Tito and Nasser decided
to organize a large press conference, so that this informal meeting suddenly assumed
excessive dimensions. At the same time, both Tito and Nehru tried to restrain the impatient
Arab who became agressive whenever he talked about the war in Algeria. Undoubtedly, the
trilateral meeting considerably increased Tito's reputation. Some Western observers held that
9 out of 13 items in the Final Declaration, which was simultaneously proclaimed in all three
capitals, was pro-Kremlin in tone. Others commented that everything was written in
accordance with expectations and was satisfactory. The Soviet press ignored the event and
only carried it as agency news. If leading Western diplomats in Belgrade understood that the
platform of the meeting of the Big Three, which later evolved into the Non-Aligned
Movement, was not pro-Soviet, the Kremlin was even more aware of this fact. The British
held that Tito wanted to profit from Nehru's international reputation because he wanted to
dispel any thought that Yugoslavia was mostly aligning itself with the East and the Soviet
Union.33 Nehru and Nasser left the Brijuni Islands for Cairo together. While their plane was
still at Pula Airport, preparations were underway for the arrival of Cambodian prince
Norodom Sihanouk, another active proponent of cooperation in the Third World. The Third
World was far from being a unified bloc of countries, but the declaration presented by the
three on the Brijuni Islands was also supported by Ghanaian leader Kwame Nkrumah and
Indonesian leader Ahmed Sukarno. If there had to be a leftist partner in the Third World, it
was better for the West that such a partner be Belgrade, which was less dangerous than
Moscow or one of its pawns. After the creation of the Non-Aligned Movement in the early
1960s, Yugoslav politicians and political scientists tried to prove that the meeting of the Big
Three on the Brijuni Islands in 1956 was the first, or at least the zero meeting that was crucial
for the future movement. The meeting of the three leaders from Europe, Asia and Africa was
rather symbolic, different from similar meetings of African, or African and Asian leaders,
something that did not often occur in international relations during that period. It was one of
the important though not decisive initiatives that paved the way for the conference that took
place five years later. In the report of the Operations Coordinating Board released in the
summer of 1956, Belgrade was still useful from the viewpoint of promoting US interests,
although Belgrade cooled down its relations with the West after Khrushchev's visit in 1955
and the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956. Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union shared close
positions on many international issues, but “as regards independence” it was clear that
Yugoslavia was continuing along a path that differed from that followed by the Soviet
satellites, and that Yugoslavia was demonstrating a significant degree of independence in its
actions and the way in which it formulated its position. The influence of Belgrade was still
felt in the internal affairs of the satellite countries. All things considered, as was concluded by
the United States, Yugoslav foreign policy was closer to that pursued by India and Burma
than to that pursued by the Soviet Union or its satellite countries. The neutralist position was
not regarded as being in favour of the “free world” since Moscow did not allow the
“neutralists” to interfere in the affairs of its satellites, but Belgrade wasn’t big enough and
insufficiently developed to have a decisive influence on socialists/communists in the Third
World countries or leftist politicians in the West. Therefore, the Yugoslav influence could be
compared to that of India. This stance allowed space for Belgrade's ambitions, still being
shaped into a coherent policy. The actual change occurred later that year, after the events in
Hungary. The Hungarian crisis broke out in November 1956. During several days of the
events that the Hungarians were later to call a “revolution”, the Yugoslavs realized that their
reconciliation with the Soviets was considerably restricted and primarily inspired by
Moscow’s wish to bring Yugoslavia back into its camp. The Hungarians demonstrated how
general rebellions could sweep away communist regimes, which worried Tito at least as
much as the Soviet intervention. It was increasingly clear that a rebellion against Moscow,
even if it was led by communists, was only an illusion, it was clear that a complete split with
Moscow was illusory for any country from the Eastern camp. In Belgrade, the support given
to Khrushchev, who remained the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union (CPSU) until 1964, was partly motivated by the fear that he could be ousted by the
hardliners or military circles. At that time, Yugoslavia lost the illusion that Khrushchev's de-
Stalinization was sincere and painfully realized its limitations. It became clear that
Yugoslavia was entering dangerous waters in its foreign policy and that its position in both
the West and the East was worse in late 1956 than ten or so years earlier. Therefore, the
second half of the 1950s was marked by Yugoslavia's search for an anchorage in world
politics and different positioning. Europe was still the principal battleground of the Cold War
and, after Hungary, Berlin remained the only trouble spot on the Old Continent. Therefore, in
the European context, Yugoslavia still stood apart and was important, but not as important as
it had been when Stalin was alive. All this prompted the Yugoslav leadership to seek a new
doctrine. As was observed in Washington, the constant efforts to maintain special relations
with Nasser, Nehru and other leaders of the Afro-Asian bloc was the real space for the
strengthening of Tito's prestige, ideological pretensions and even the formation of a group of
countries in which he could have an influential, if not dominant, role. The new program of
the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (LCY) was presented at its congress in Ljubljana in
1958. Tito opened the meeting. His speech came after a sharp attack on the Soviet Union
delivered by Aleksandar Ranković (the second or third most powerful man in Yugoslavia).
All delegates from the European communist countries – the Chinese, Albanians and
Czechoslovakians did not attend the congress – stood up at that moment and left the hall. The
only exception was the Polish delegate who fell asleep. The program was far from being very
(counter-)revolutionary. The new basic document of the Yugoslav ruling party criticized the
“imperialists and capitalists” and their aggressive policy against “communism and socialist
countries”. Neocolonialism was the new way in which the rich exploited the poor. There was
an increasing number of Western military bases. Therefore, the LCY would strive towards a
world where nations were more closely linked to each other and oriented towards each other,
but were also “independent” and able to decide on their own interests and the coalitions
useful to them. The new nations represented “positive forces” tending toward peace. Should
they be independent, they could contribute to world peace, which was the aim of Yugoslav
diplomacy. A real peace policy implied active coexistence, including the full understanding
of independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, non-interference in the internal
affairs of other countries or nations, and non-affiliation to any bloc. The economies of all
countries should be inter-linked. Yugoslavia now obliged itself to follow such a line in
international relations through the world organization, aiming to make it universal. The new
party program caused a new break in relations between Moscow and Belgrade, but not as
serious as that of 1948. In late 1958 and early 1959, Tito again visited the Third World
countries aboard Galeb. He visited Indonesia, Burma, India, Ethiopia, Ceylon, Sudan and the
United Arab Republic (UAR), as Egypt and Syria were called. Tito’s deputies and associates
went to other countries. In October 1959, Koča Popović, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs,
went to Cuba after the session of the United Nations General Assembly (UN GA). Although
his visit was announced as breaking news, he did not meet with President Dorticos; there was
no joint press conference or short encounter with the leader of the revolution, Fidel Castro.
The party organ, Hoy, “completely ignored” Popović's visit as well as the visits of other
Yugoslav high officials. Although the misunderstanding was only partially linked to their
different interpretation of Marxism and was largely due to an internal crisis on the island, it
was significant and proved to be the first in relations between the two countries. In 1960, the
leaders of five Third World countries, Indonesia, India, Egypt, Ghana and Yugoslavia, met on
the premises of the Yugoslav Mission to the United Nations, on the margins of the jubilant
15th anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly. The gathering took place under
the impact of the U-2 spy plane incident and failure of the meeting of US President Dwight
Eisenhower and Nikita Khrushchev in Paris, while the Berlin crisis was deepening. The
Tunisian town of Bizerta was still under French occupation. Tensions between the United
States and Castro's Cuba were increasing and war was being waged in Angola, Algeria and
Vietnam. Tito and his guests wrote a letter to the United Nations General Assembly. The
initiative of the five leaders was intentionally over-ambitious and unrealistic. It called for the
immediate resumption of the talks between the White House and the Kremlin, which showed
that the participating Third World countries were also ready to act globally. Concern for the
world should not only be left to the great nations. Although the above-mentioned actions
probably had their own ad hoc partial reasons, they were later included in a narrative, which
logically ended with the Belgrade conference in 1961 and the formation of the Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM). In this sense, the final breakthrough was Tito's longest trip in his career –
a 72-day-long journey around Africa in 1961. It was clear that in the “Year of Africa”
Belgrade was trying to develop its own “African policy” that would not fit into any existing
mould.

The First NAM Conference in Belgrade

On February 1961, Tito's ship Galeb, escorted by four military ships with 1,200 sailors, three
special planes and more than 100 officials, set off on a 72-day journey to Ghana, Togo,
Liberia, Guinea, Mali, Morocco, Tunisia and the UAR. Tito’s entourage had barely left the
Adriatic when news of the assassination of Congolese president Patrice Lumumba shocked
the world. Mass rallies attended by tens of thousands of protesters were organized throughout
Yugoslavia. Only the protests against the US involvement in the Vietnam War, organized a
few years later, reached the same proportions.
Before starting his journey, Tito talked with the American ambassador to Yugoslavia,
assuring him that the idea of this journey was to reduce tensions in the world. There would be
talk about colonialism, but not one country would be attacked. Ambasador Karl Rankin was
aware that Yugoslavia's criticism of the West was always sharper than that of the East. Tito
spoke in a conciliatory manner but, at the same time, was brutally open: “Moreover, Congo
and similar countries were primitive and backward”. Thus, it would be justified to interfere in
their internal affairs for ideological reasons and the wish to have them adopt a certain
ideology. Ambassador Rankin was suspicious of the real motives behind Tito's journey. He
wrote to the State Department that, bearing in mind previous experience, it was to be
expected that his statements and actions were motivated by other reasons and not his concern
for the well-being of the Africans. The American diplomat probably had something else in
mind, but it was clear how much Yugoslav diplomacy had matured. The Yugoslavs were less
naive and were prepared to adjust their policy towards the Third World to serve Yugoslav
interests. While sailing along the coast of West Africa, Tito proposed organizing a conference
of Third World countries. Yugoslav telegraphists sent the messages to prime minister Nehru,
Ghanian president Nkrumah and Indonesian leader Sukarno, sounding out their interest in the
idea. Sukarno accepted it. Nehru accepted with some hesitation. With Nasser, Tito's closest
associate, he talked about everything while cruising the Nile up to Helwan. The approval of
Nasser and Nehru was crucial for mobilization of the Near East, Asian and African countries.
The failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuban émigrés, which occurred on the same day as Tito
arrived in Alexandria (17 August 1961), on which the two politicians issued a joint statement,
was used to emphasize the need to organize those countries that did not belong to any bloc.
The failed invasion of Cuba contributed to giving the new American President, J.F. Kennedy
a bad image at the very beginning of his term of office. Moreover, in this period, the notion
of an imperialist state ready to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries was
enhanced, while the positive notion of the Soviet Union was strengthened. In the end, the
Belgrade Conference was attended by representatives of all the countries visited by Tito, with
the exception of Liberia and Togo. From the very outset, Yugoslavia played a crucial role in
organizing the First Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement. A preparatory meeting at
ministerial level was held in Cairo in early June 1961. From the start, Yugoslavia was
resolute in its intention to host the conference, which could clearly be perceived from the
Yugoslav press and private encounters with leading politicians. The Egyptians and Cubans
were also interested in playing host. Cairo had a certain advantage; it was closer to the
majority of the countries wishing to participate in the conference and had more hotels, but the
Cold War started in Europe, so that it was much more logical to hold the conference in the
courtyard of opposing parts of the world. As the Yugoslavs discovered while sailing all the
way around Africa, Nasser was not popular among some Africans. Many Arabs did not like
him either. Nkrumah “had serious doubts about cooperation with Nasser” and was not
prepared to take “a back seat”. Moroccan king Hassan II preferred Yugoslavia to Egypt, as
his envoy Amet Balafreze said during his visit to Belgrade in May 1961. Yugoslavia's hosting
could “increase the possibility of wider Arab participation”. It seems that the invitation to
Tunisia to participate came at the proposal of the Sudanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, who
himself was not altogether happy at the prospect of Cairo hosting the conference. The former
French colonies were considered pro-Western and were not invited to attend.
The ideas advanced by Indonesian President Sukarno were too radical and thus hardly
acceptable to a number of Asian leaders. This primarily referred to the Indians, but they still
wished to be one of the sponsors of the conference. The Indians were constantly trying to
expand the list of pro-Western neutral countries. Nigeria was invited at India's insistence, but
Lagos turned down the invitation. Venezuela also rejected the invitation to attend. At first,
Nehru was not willing to participate in the conference, holding that it would be just an
expanded meeting of the Big Five, like the one held in New York a year earlier. New Delhi
hoped that the meeting would pass without open attacks on the East or the West, that
sensitive issues, involving Berlin, Mauritania, Pashtunistan and Israel, would be skipped and
that the debate would focus on global issues. Burmanese prime minister U Nu wished to let
Belgrade clearly know what his position was with respect to a number of global issues. At the
same time, he was resolutely against the Soviet proposal for the re-organization of the United
Nations. Budimir Lončar, an advisor to Koča Popović in 1961, was assigned the task of
securing Belgrade's hosting at the preparatory meeting of the Host Country Committee.
Ethiopia, which was important as a pro-Western African country, was distinctly in favour of
Yugoslavia, like a considerable number of other countries. Cuba was the only country which
resolutely opposed Yugoslavia's hosting until the end. “The Cuban President even threatened
that the Cubans would not participate should the Conference be held in Yugoslavia”, Tito
himself said to Indonesian President Sukarno. Cuba’s insistence on the “liquidation of
capitalism” and putting pressure on one big power was unacceptable. On the other hand, the
Americans were interested in keeping the “uncommitted” countries together, without
deepening the division into pro-Western and pro-Eastern blocs, which would be detrimental
to them. Kennedy’s Ambassador to Belgrade, the famous George Kennan, wrote that it was
felt that the Yugoslavs had enough power to deal with the other nations in Cairo in order to
avoid such a development and that they hoped that something like that would not happen.
The famous American diplomat was right. George Kennan visited Tito on Brijuni together
with Undersecretary Bowles on 30 July 1961. The case of Brazil, another country which
decided not to participate in the conference as a full member, was not discussed. Yugoslavia
blamed the United States for this because of the pressure it had exerted, which was evident
from a letter sent by US Ambassador John Cabot to the Brazilian Government in the newly-
built Brasilia. It would be embarrassing if Cuba was the only Latin American country to
attend the Belgrade conference, Tito said, showing clearly once again that relations between
Belgrade and Havana were strained. At the same time, it did not seem problematic to
Belgrade that some other neutral European countries were not invited to come to Yugoslavia.
The Americans were not overly concerned about the fact that the Belgrade Conference would
be the largest gathering of anti-American and anti-Western nations, excluding those
belonging to the communist camp. At the same time, the British lobbied among moderate
neutral countries in favour of attending the conference. They hoped that these countries,
together with Yugoslavia, would ensure a more moderate course at the conference. In his last
letters to some world leaders, Tito asked them to display “maximum constructiveness” and
“minimum propaganda”. In his memorandum to President Kennedy, George Kennan wrote
that there was not much left that could be done; rather, one should wait for the natural process
of disintegration. It would be wise to send journalists, especially “Negro journalists”, which
would testify to American diversity. The evident Yugoslav anti-Americanism was still not
personal and based on the experience of mutual relations; rather, it was the reflection of a
deep and frank disagreement about the wisdom of certain actions in international relations. At
the same time, the Yugoslav media propaganda was much harsher and much more negative
than Tito's private statements. As Kennan wisely wrote in his report to the State Department,
the history of his nation had taught him to be unusually sensitive to any sign of the
oppression of small nations by large ones. CIA analysts were also aware of Yugoslavia's
ambition as one of those small countries which alone do not have great influence, but aspire
to broader leadership and the creation of a bloc of countries that agree with the general
principles of foreign policy and can express their views “collectively”. Likewise, as long as
there are tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States, there is a golden
opportunity for small countries, like Yugoslavia, to fish in muddy waters, American
diplomats wrote. The member countries of the Non-Aligned Movement could not create a
third bloc because they lacked discipline, coherence and economic inter-dependence, while
some of their leaders also lacked maturity. At times, there were even fewer political ties
among them, but the common denominator was so broad that it could satisfy all participants.
This proved to be sufficient to keep all the NAM countries together. Tito was an excellent
conference host. The guests from Africa and the Near East were impressed with the efficient
administration and economic and political vitality of a country living its most brilliant years.
All conference participants were provided with excellent accommodation. Black politicians
were welcomed with true enthusiasm, which seemed a miracle to countries that had won
independence only a few months earlier. The summit was organized in early September,
shortly before the UN GA session, in order to enhance the message to be sent from it. Tito's
speech was a different story. The Yugoslav leader spoke out against blocs and conflicts,
which were not normal and were dangerous. The uncommitted countries should take a stand
on issues of general interest for peace and humanity. American anxiety over the conference
was not unfounded since Tito almost completely justified the announcement of the Soviet
Union that it would lift a three-year nuclear test moratorium. The question that remains
unanswered is whether this Soviet move, which took place on the first day of the Belgrade
Conference, was prompted by the Non-Aligned Summit or to overshadow criticism of the
erection of the Berlin Wall a few weeks earlier. Whatever the reason, US Ambassador
Kennan was disgusted by Tito's speech, although many American diplomats did not agree
with the vitriolic reaction of their superior. Prince Daoud, prime minister of Afghanistan,
raised the mood of the conference by interrupting the speech and announcing that the Kabul
government would recognize the Algerian revolutionaries as the legal representatives of
Algeria. Ghana, Cambodia and Yugoslavia did the same a few days later. There were
moments when the extremist participants bombarded the conference with their views, but
there were also a number of much more moderate views. Moroccan king Hassan II
condemned France for the creation of an artificial state called Mauritania, Spain for its
occupation of the Sahara, Portugal for its presence in Angola, as well as the tolerance of the
violation of Arab rights in Palestine. Saudi Arabia was in conflict with Nasser and viewed the
conference as a way to affirm itself in the Arab world. The aggressive Algerians, who were
still not recognized by the majority, could sense that the future was likely to bring conflict
with Morocco. The leader of the Algerian revolution, Ben Bella, contemplated how to unite
the Maghreb countries, which was viewed as a direct threat to the stability of the Kingdom of
Morocco. Like all subsequent conferences, the first one was also a demonstration of an
emotional anti-colonial and anti-Western pattern of behaviour, partly in conformity with the
Soviet view. Some of the political leaders of the countries that just won independence, who
were later important and active NAM members, like Cheddi Jagan from the People's
Progressive Party of British Guiana, sent telegrams to the attendees.
The Soviet acceptance of the conference was not as sincere as one might assume. The entire
tone of the speeches was much more pro-Soviet, but this was not sufficient for Moscow. It
was quite clear that Yugoslavia would not return to the East. Representatives of the liberation
movements gathered in Belgrade, but a number of the adopted resolutions were contrary to
Soviet wishes. Although there were attempts to appeal for the recognition of two German
states, such a statement was not included in the final document. This was a blow both to the
leader of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), Walter Ulbricht, and the entire Soviet
bloc. Only nine countries supported the idea of recognizing “existing reality”, while fifteen
were adamantly against recognition of the division of Germany. The non-aligned countries
refused to support the Soviet Troika initiative, to include one Western country, one
communist country and one non-aligned country with voting power, instead of having the UN
Secretary General. The non-aligned countries also refused to support Soviet proposals
concerning disarmament and a nuclear test ban. The rights of Palestinian Arabs were
emphasized, while the condemnation of Israel in the final document draft was rather vague.
Nevertheless, the Soviets were not criticized during the conference, while the West,
especially Portugal and France, were constantly attacked. Some countries were considered
pro-Western, particularly Ceylon, Afghanistan, Nepal, Cambodia, Burma, Sudan and
Ethiopia. The conference also demonstrated India's “middle” position. As was emphasized by
the media, the Indians were always against blocs and bloc logic, which colored the
nationalisms of many African countries. It was clear that New Delhi took a different stand on
many issues broached in Belgrade from Yugoslavia, for example. The US Ambassador to
India, John Kenneth Galbright, informed the State Department that J. Nehru was not at all
satisfied with Tito's speech at the conference. Although Indian prime minister Nehru and
Ghanian president Nkrumah were selected to travel to Moscow in order to present the
“Statement on the Danger of War and Appeal for Peace”, which was adopted by the
conference participants, the Indian leader was reserved. Nehru's visit to Moscow was agreed
after the Belgrade conference. At first, he was against playing the role of “postman”.
However, on 5 September, Nehru confirmed to American journalists that he and Nkrumah
would ask for a new Khrushchev-Kennedy meeting on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.
Moscow was informed that the renewal of nuclear tests had come as a shock to all in
Belgrade. The CPSU General Secretary held that nuclear tests strengthened the forces of
peace just as the Non-Aligned Countries were easing the world situation as a moral factor.
Nehru's impression after the meeting with Khrushchev was that the latter certainly did not
plan an armed conflict. Indonesian leader Sukarno and Modibo Keita of Mali took the same
letter to Washington. This was a golden opportunity for the Malian. He was persuaded by
Tito to participate in the conference during the latter's travel around Africa. Now, about a
year after the proclamation of Mali's independence, Keita, who was much more introvert than
Sukarno, was received by the American president in the White House as a representative of
25 states. Thus, non-alignment produced results almost instantly for the poorest nations,
which became more visible and found protection under the roof of the Non-Aligned Group.
The ultimate aim written down in both letters was to resume the dialogue between the
superpowers. Berlin and the German issue – less than a month after the erection of an “anti-
fascist protective rampart”, as the Wall was called in the East – were the subject of many
discussions. Anyway, as written by Chicago Sunday Times’s journalist Frederick Kuh, the
initiative was part of a “propaganda tactical deception”, since the course of history itself was
pushing the East and the West toward negotiations. According to Kuh, despite its odiousness,
the conflict over Berlin was a small problem, while the struggle between the two blocs over
alliance with the non-engaged world was crucial and the most important phenomenon of our
time in the long term.
The Cubans constantly demonstrated insufficient respect for their Yugoslav hosts, but, in the
end, they could be satisfied with the results of their stay in the FPRY. Egypt was primarily
interested in Arab problems. Tunisia decided to attend the conference due to its unpleasant
experience with the French in Bizerta. Since all participants at the Belgrade Conference
supported Bourguiba, the Tunisians now had a somewhat better position for their talks with
France. Never completely cured of megalomania – which was, in general, the common
characteristic of a number of statesmen participating at the Belgrade conference – Tunisian
president Bourguiba was convinced that this conference was a step further away from
“positive neutralism” toward “non-alignment vis-à-vis both the East and the West” and that
all this was based solely on his, Tunisian, ideas. The conference showed increasing
differences between Indonesia and India. Immediatly after his return to Jakarta, Indonesian
president Sukarno finally announced a new view of the world according to which “old
established forces” were afraid of “new emerging forces”. This was simply an elaboration of
the thesis presented by Sukarno in Belgrade: “The conflict between the new emerging forces
for freedom and justice and the old forces of domination. “In any case, worldwide tensions
were generated by imperialism, colonialism and the imposed division of nations. There can
be no coexistence between “independence and justice, on the one hand, and imperialism and
colonialism, on the other.
Yugoslavia did not pose a severe problem for the West as long as it remained independent of
Moscow. The NAM Conference increased Yugoslavia's prestige in the world, while at the
same time improving its economic situation. In a certain way, non-alignment became the path
to salvation for Yugoslavia and Tito personally. Yugoslavia's isolation from the West and the
East was serious and genuine. Tito could now play the role of leader. The path sought since
the early 1950s was finally found. Aligning with any alliance was wrong and fighting against
such policies was worth the effort. Yugoslavia supported anti-colonial revolution, true
independence and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. As George
Kennan commented, this practically meant that the policy of any Western country or the
United States towards any small non-NATO country could be criticized. True, Yugoslav
actions were sometimes anti-Western and anti-European, but even some Yugoslav politicians
criticized them. In the Third World, the Yugoslavs traded in ideas, in which they often
abounded. The Foreign Office concluded in 1961, just before the conference, that from its
viewpoint Yugoslav influence in Africa was altogether more positive than negative. Although
the Yugoslavs were Marxists, they were viewed as “revisionist heretics” and their activities
did not lead to the “inclusion of African countries in the Soviet-Chinese bloc”. Belgrade was
often over-ardent where criticism of neo-colonialism was involved and this was not good
from the standpoint of Western economic interests. According to the British, the Yugoslavs
supported “true neutralism”. In any case, in countries like Ghana and Guinea, which were
already lost to the West, this posed much less danger than from the Chinese or Soviets.

Non-Alignment and Tito’s Yugoslavia, One and the Same

Consequently, it is not surprising that in 1964 the British diplomats who complained about
what they saw as preferential treatment of the Yugoslavs in official Foreign Office bulletins
concerning communist activity in East Africa, received a patronizing answer from London:
the reason why this was not done (i.e. why Yugoslavia was not condemned), referring
specifically to Africa, lay in the fact that the Yugoslavs had created a desirable perception of
themselves. Should they be depicted in the same colour as that used to depict the Russians,
Chinese, Cubans and others, this would benefit the Russians and their cronies rather than
harm the Yugoslavs. Tanzanian president Julius Nyerere, for example, had a very high
opinion of the Yugoslavs and often regarded them as being equal to the Israelis – benevolent,
non-aligned, and against colonialism. Since the Cold War in Europe froze, after the erection
of the Berlin Wall and Albania's abandonment of the camp, it became clear once again that
tensions were moving from the Old Continent towards the Third World. At that time, radical
countries, like Indonesia before the failed coup of 1965 and the Cubans, advocated either a
second gathering of Asian and African countries, Bandung 2, or a three-continent conference
(including only the Asian, African and Latin American nations), which was the Cuban idea.
Yugoslavia was excluded in both cases. The global idea of non-alignment was reduced to
regional gatherings of countries with colonial experience.
Tito's regime never became really moderate, at least not from the Western viewpoint. This
was not its aim, nor was it in conformity with Tito's ideology and world view. However,
being extremely pragmatic, talented and determined to keep his own independence, he did
not make any compromise involving leaning towards the Soviet Union. In April 1964, the
Cuban newspaper Hoy published a fierce attack on Yugoslavia using words that were usually
“reserved for Yankee imperialism” and other “devilish figures from Castro’s mythology”.
Since Yugoslavia had advocated the participation of Venezuela at the Second Conference of
the Non-Aligned Movement in Cairo in 1964, Belgrade was deemed “offensive”and was
accused of “hostility and dishonesty”. The Canadian diplomats in Havana wrote that if the
Yugoslavs held that the Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement should be used as a lever
for spreading neutralist ideas and a cautious promotion of the communist view on certain
world problems, it would be necessary to try to avoid the extremist position that was
regularly taken by the Castro regime at international gatherings, because this would turn
away those very countries which Yugoslavia was trying to attract. Moreover, the Yugoslavs
even welcomed the opportunity to present themselves publicly as being different from Cuba,
thus avoiding being painted the same colour as the Cubans. Admittedly, Yugoslavia did not
give any significant aid to the Cubans, but the war with Belgrade could hardly be in the
Cuban interest. The Second Non-Aligned Summit Conference in Cairo only deepened some
tendencies that were already evident in Belgrade. India finally decided to embrace
membership wholeheartedly, feeling isolated and surrounded by a hostile China, Pakistan and
Burma. The Indians were afraid of the initiative for convening Bandung 2, advanced by
Sukarno and Zhou Enlai. Therefore, Tito's and Nehru's interests finally overlapped. Tito, who
was less radical than in 1961, wanted the Cairo summit to be Belgrade 2 and avoid, at all
costs, a gathering of Asian countries, where the pro-Chinese countries would play an
important role. For this reason, the position of the Yugoslav ambassador to Jakarta was also
of special significance. Therefore, all efforts were made to slow down Sukarno's radical
withdrawal. The failure of the principles of Pancasila, after the Chinese attack on India in
October 1962, did not leave any room for manoeuvre for the Indians. After the worsening of
relations between China and the Soviet Union, the improvement of Soviet-Yugoslav relations
accelerated, since the platform under which the NAM countries had gathered, excluded
countries like China. Over the following months, the isolation of Beijing only deepened. All
this had a positive impact on these countries, despite the fact that India was represented by
Nehru's successor Krishna Menon in Cairo. The crisis in Congo had a strong influence on the
organization and course of the First NAM Conference in Belgrade. The Second NAM
Conference headlines were stolen by Moise Tshombe, the legal Congolese prime minister
and the person responsible for Patrice Lumumba's assassination. It pointed to the deep
divisions among the Third World countries. Although it was legitimate, his participation
irritated Tito and some other participants. The Marshal of Yugoslavia said resolutely: “I
won't participate in the conference if Tshombe will be present.” In the end, the Congolese
prime minister did not attend because he had been placed under house arrest. In all other
respects, Tito moved towards the middle and took up a moderate position. For the Non-
Aligned Movement leftist radicalism was much more dangerous than the pro-Western
countries, which mostly remained passive in this movement. Since the Cairo conference was
the last one in which Nasser participated – six years later he refused to go to Lusaka, knowing
that Soviet criticism (at that time he was in alliance with the Soviet Union) would be too
unpleasant – while other great names in the early history of the Non-Aligned Movement
during the 1960s had either been deposed or died (Ben Bella, Sukarno, Nkrumah, Keita), this
strengthened Tito's dominant position. The Yugoslavs were aware that many conclusions of
the Cairo conference were “maximalist and unrealistic”, but this had already become
common practice at NAM meetings.
After the Cairo Conference, the NAM entered a period of crisis. The joint meeting of Tito,
Nasser and Indira Ghandi, India's new prime minister and Jawaharlal Nehru's daughter, in
1966 was only symbolically important, although it called for additional explanations to the
other participants that this was not a meeting of the “elite” or informal leadership of the Non-
Aligned Movement. Apart from its symbolic significance, this meeting really carried no
political weight. Of greater importance to the whole world, including the NAM, was the
Arab, especially Egypt's, defeat in the war with Israel in 1967, which simply pushed them
into the arms of the Soviets. Shortly afterwards, in 1968, Yugoslavia undertook a broad
diplomatic offensive to revive the Non-Aligned Movement. Tito's diplomats visited all
potential and former NAM members, proposing a new summit conference. The initiative
preceded the intervention of the Warsaw Pact countries (except Romania) in Czechoslovakia
in August 1968. Some old divisions were still present, such as India's opposition to Pakistan's
membership, but there were also some new, interesting and different initiatives. The Spanish
ambassador to France, Generalissimo Franco's representative, approached his Yugoslav
colleague in Paris, Ivo Vejvoda, to express the interest of Madrid in the next NAM
conference. This proposal was rejected. The Lusaka conference in 1970 was largely a
Yugoslav project and Yugoslav conference. The relevant documents were written in Belgrade
and Yugoslav diplomats did their best to make this conference successful. After the Lusaka
Conference, the NAM countries met regularly every third year, without exception. In an
analysis of this summit conference, leading Yugoslav politicians concluded that the “Arab
lack of interest had been marginalized”, and that the left radicals and participants from right-
wing countries were moving towards the center. The most extremist countries included
Congo Brazzaville, Cuba, Sudan and Libya, and the most conservative ones Lesotho,
Swaziland and Liberia. In the end, the decision of Gamal Abdel Nasser not to travel to
Lusaka hurt the reputation of Egypt rather than adversely affected the entire Non-Aligned
Movement. In fact, the NAM was reaffirmed.

The reaction of Slovenian politician Stane Dolanc, one of the most influential individuals in
the Yugoslav security system, was amazing: “non-alignment was accepted as a political
movement and there are extraordinary chances that such a policy encompasses not only
Africa, Asia and possibly Latin America or, so to say, the non-civilized world, but that all
others also accept it as an alternative to the current constellation of international relations”.
This statement was not only politically incorrect, but also partially offset the constant
criticism that Yugoslav foreign policy was not sufficiently European and pointed out that the
element of pragmatism in the NAM was one of the important motives of Yugoslav policy.
During the 1970s, after several successful interventions throughout Africa, Cuba's self-
confidence increased enormously. Its policy was increasingly oriented towards the
transformation of the NAM into the “strategic reserve” of the socialist bloc and all this had to
be achieved by Cuban diplomacy. During Tito’s meeting with the highest-ranking officials in
1979, Macedonian politician Aleksandar Grličkov defined the Yugoslav position within the
Non-Aligned Movement as being “truly leftist”, “the most leftist program and most leftist
philosophy within the NAM on offer… there is none more leftist than that”. In essence, Fidel
Castro offered the break-up of socialism as a world process, which was actually a rightist
position, the Yugoslav ideologist stated. Since Fidel Castro was designated as the host of the
Sixth NAM Conference, with the idea of redirecting the movement, the SFRY diplomacy was
faced with a serious task. The actual threat was not posed by the few agile and radical
countries that rallied around Cuba. A greater threat was posed by the numerous passive
countries. The host country could always organize the auditorium, journalists, distribution of
speeches and order of speakers, as well as use various types of manipulation. Castro did all
this in 1979. In Havana, Egypt was represented by the number-two man in the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the future UN Secretary General. The reason for
such a low level was an attempt to partially mitigate the blow should the Arab countries –
Iraq was especially vocal – expel Egypt from the NAM due to its signing the Camp David
Accords. The Cubans still advocated the idea that the socialist bloc was the natural ally of the
non-aligned countries, many of which were building socialism in their own way, but did not
want to allow usurpation of the name of this historical process.

Tito (now at the ripe old age of 88) and Yugoslavia succeeded once again in preserving the
“authentic principles of non-alignment” at the Havana conference. At that time, both the
West and the United States appreciated such an effort. Nixon's visit to Belgrade, Zagreb, and
Kumrovec coincided with Lusaka and the Yugoslav side really believed that the success of
that meeting was the reason behind Nixon's decision to visit Yugoslavia for the first time in
the history of the White House and a socialist country for the second time in its history. Nine
years later, Zbigniew Brzezinski, chief advisor to President Jimmy Carter, said that
Yugoslavia, together with the United States and the Soviet Union, was the only country that
had affirmed itself as a global factor. Belgrade's position in the Non-Aligned Movement was
constructive. In the light of the dying détente, parallel to an increase in the number of
conflicts in the Third World, the behavior of Cuba and Vietnam, Yugoslavia really seemed
like an “American communist ally”.

After the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, a non-aligned and socialist country, which was
not a Warsaw Pact member, in December 1979, Belgrade became panicky. In January 1980,
Tito was admitted into hospital which he never left. Was Moscow merely waiting for Tito to
die in order to renew its pressure on Belgrade? In an effort to prevent this possibility and
mobilize the world's attention as much as possible, Yugoslavia insisted that the NAP organize
a special ministerial meeting where Soviet intervention would be condemned for the first
time ever. Until then, this kind of condemnation was always reserved for Western countries.
However, fearing the strengthened position of Pakistan and China, which was in sharp
conflict with Moscow, India was not ready to support the Yugoslav initiative that was
directed at the then important Indian ally. With Cuba as Chair of the Non-Aligned
Movement, coupled with the passive stance of the important countries, the Yugoslav
initiative could hardly be accepted. Admittedly, an extraordinary meeting was held, but one
year after the Soviet invasion, when Moscow's wishes and possibilities became evident. The
efforts of Yugoslavia's Federal Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Josip Vrhovec, to have Moscow
condemned, was a clear indicator that the NAM was the main lever of Yugoslav diplomacy,
since the Non-Aligned Movement was often used in Yugoslav politics. The government
installed in Kabul by the Soviet Union after its intervention was never recognized by Western
countries nor by Yugoslavia. Belgrade recognized the “Afghan people”, but not Babrak
Karmal, so that diplomatic representation in Afghanistan remained at the level of chargé
d'affaires. There were no top-level visits. The Federal Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Raif
Dizdarević, for example, refused to greet his Afghan colleague at the airport as late as 1988.
There were no official receptions or joint statements after the meeting. The public humiliation
of the Afghans was Yugoslavia's message to Moscow. The crisis in Yugoslavia, which was
becoming increasingly serious during the 1980s, also affected the position of the SFRY
within the NAM. Although Raif Dizdarević did his best to lobby for having the 1986 Eighth
Conference held in Belgrade, the battle was poorly prepared and conducted, and the host
became Zimbabwe. In any case, it was Africa's turn to be the host and it was one of the rare
conferences which was not regional and was held in Africa. For Zimbabwe, which had won
independence several years earlier, this conference was a historic event, which had yet to
show its maturity. The next summit conference was held in Belgrade three years later when
Budimir Lončar became head of Yugoslavia's diplomacy. There were numerous reasons for
Yugoslavia's hosting the conference, but a great number of them were just local and
important for a country that was breaking apart – the hope that some negative processes could
be slowed down in this way. During the Cold War, the first and the last Summit Conference
of the Non-Aligned Movement took place in Belgrade. The first conference demonstrated the
importance and prestige of Yugoslavia among the Third World countries, while the last one
was held in a disintegrating country, in 1989. One of the reasons for selecting a country in
crisis was the wish of most countries to circumvent Nicaragua, which was strongly lobbying
to take the chair. In the late 1980s, with a change in Soviet policy and Mikhail Gorbachev in
Moscow, it would not be wise to have Nicaragua as Chair of the Non-Aligned Movement.
The country was extremist and opposed to changes, especially those in the socialist world.
Ultimately, shortly before its collapse, Yugoslavia did something useful for the Non-Aligned
Movement. Belgrade wanted to remain a player, that is, to be present on the international
scene. Proportional visibility, which was ensured by holding the Chair of the Non-Aligned
Movement, the fact that in this capacity the country would be invited to attend numerous
international meetings, could help those forces in the country itself which pleaded for
responsibility, tried to stabilize the situation and thus transmit true messages to international
factors. The Western countries also hoped for Belgrade instead of some radical country. Only
the First and Ninth NAM Conference, which was completely successful and modern in many
respects, took place in Belgrade in 1989. During 1990, while the Yugoslav federation was
falling apart, after the Non-Aligned Movement was ignored by the Yugoslav public, leading
Yugoslav diplomats were given recognition for what the NAM had meant for the world in
concrete circumstances at the end of a historical period. On 18 January 1990, Waclaw Havel,
the first democratic president of Czechoslovakia, told Budimir Lončar, Federal Secretary for
Foreign Affairs, that he dreamed of a world “in which all countries will be non-aligned”.
According to him, “Yugoslavia played a very important role and was non-aligned during the
Cold War”. When the world mobilized to punish Iraqi aggression against Kuwait, American
Secretary of State James Baker thanked the SFRY on 3 October 1990 for its “views on Iraqi
aggression... and the actions are taken in its capacity as the Chair of the NAM. Hans Dietrich
Genscher, West German Vice-Chancellor and Minister of Foreign Affairs, was probably the
most vocal. On 1 September 1990, he “highly evaluated the role of Yugoslavia as the Chair
of the NAM and its efforts within the NAM and the UN at finding a peaceful solution” to the
Iraq crisis. “He stated that it was a true blessing for the world that at this critical time
Yugoslavia chaired the NAM“.
In May 1988, Josip Vrhovac, the former Federal Secretary for Foreign Affairs and then a
member of the Presidency of the SFRY, met with American president Ronald Reagan in
Washington. The American president first thanked his Yugoslav colleague for everything
Belgrade had done “in the case of Colonel Hawari, as an important step in the struggle
against international terrorism”. Belgrade had helped locate a group headed by Abdullah Abd
Al Hamid Labib, known as Hawari, which was responsible for planting a bomb aboard TWA
Flight 840 flying from Rome to Athens in 1986.
Yugoslav firms were excellent and desirable for projects in distant countries. They built
congress centers in Accra, Liberville, Lusaka and Harare, the Naval Academy in Tripoli, the
Ministry of Oil in Baghdad, irrigation systems in Peru, a hydro-electric power plant and dam
in Panama, port facilities in Tartous in Syria, Assab in Ethiopia and Bombay in India, a trade
center in Lagos, a hospital in Guinea, and trade centers in Mali. The Libyan authorities
wanted Yugoslavia to build a chemical industrial plant and laser equipment company. They
also wished to conclude an agreement on the use of nuclear energy with Yugoslavia. At
times, Yugoslav companies were more expensive than others, but the Libyans wanted them,
convinced that Belgrade would not abuse their hospitality. The most profitable projects were
realized with Iraq. Since the outbreak of the conflict between Iraq and Iran the Yugoslav
Secretariat for Foreign Affairs became unusually silent. It is quite clear that Iraq was the
aggressor, but due to pressure from military circles, Baghdad was not condemned because
Saddam Hussein, the sole master of Iraq since 1979, was an excellent buyer of equipment and
all kinds of materials from Yugoslavia. Iraq also became Yugoslavia's biggest trade partner in
the Third World. Some 16,000 Yugoslavs worked there and many of them built 34 military
projects throughout the country. Yugoslav companies constructed the most sensitive facilities
for Iraq: underground nuclear-proof bunkers for Saddam and factories where Kalashnikov
weapons and missile systems were manufactured.
The music school, built in the capital city of Gabon, was named after Croatian composer
Josip Štolcer Slavenski. The author of the first Ethiopian constitution was Croatian lawyer
Leon Geršković, founder of the Faculty of Political Science in Zagreb, the first such faculty
in a socialist country. Yugoslav experts were asked to establish universities in Angola and
Madagascar. Yugoslav experts also taught in Addis Ababa, while thousands of foreign
students came to Yugoslavia to study. In the late 1970s, three Ethiopian ministers were
Yugoslav students. Yasser Arafat, leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, who was
supported by the SFRY in various ways, expressed his gratitude to Tito for “training
Palestine pilots” in Yugoslavia. Libyan dictator Gaddafi did the same thing. His naval cadets
studied at the Naval Academy in Split. While visiting secret military facilities in Bosnia,
including an underground explosives factory, Gaddafi said that Libya was ready to receive
“not thousands, but hundreds of thousands of Yugoslav experts and workers”. Malta, which
became a NAM member, was extremely important for Yugoslavia, which was interested in
having a greater number of NAM members from Europe. Therefore, Belgrade built a small
factory on the island. In the early 1980s, Maltese leader Dom Mintoff asked the SFRY to
donate a ship to La Valetta, which it did. The Yugoslav state also helped in supplying
weapons and arming. As emphasized by Robert Mugabe during Tito's funeral, Yugoslavia
donated “50,000 tons of wheat and armaments” to Zimbabwe. Yugoslavia also armed
Algeria, Guinea, Guinea Bissao, Namibia's resistance movement SWAPO, Zambia, Sri
Lanka, Angola. The Ethiopians also obtained 70 tanks when they were attacked by Somalia.
This old equipment was part of the equipment given by the United States in the 1950s; under
the agreement, they could not be re-sold to anyone. Although their value was initially
estimated at 12 million dollars, Mengistu Haile Mariam and the Addis Abeba authorities
never paid for them. The Americans knew about this transaction, but never put more pressure
on Yugoslavia for this very reason.

The most important assistance was probably provided by Tito to Egypt in 1973. President
Sadat's special envoy came to Belgrade to ask for assistance. Tito said that he “asked for
tanks”. Sadat personally thanked the Yugoslav leader for assistance in the Parliament in
Cairo, mentioning that the Yugoslav President had sent 140 tanks with full equipment,
including ammunition, straight to the battlefield, thus preventing Israel’s occupation of Cairo.
The Yugoslav planes Galeb and Jastreb were sold to Zambia and Libya. Some of them were
still operable during NATO’s attack on Libya in 2011.
In the end, everything that was donated or remained unpaid in the Third World did not
particularly improve Yugoslavia's position. However, since the NAM idea was so broad and
acceptable in various respects – it was about the struggle against imperialism, colonialism,
neocolonialism, apartheid, racism, hegemony and occupation – for countries wishing to act
within such a framework, it was an excellent medium for the activities of a country which
evidently understood that, in a certain way, the Cold War framework and peace were crucial
for its survival. For smaller and poorer countries, the NAM was the only way to make their
voice heard, feel equal and be treated like richer and bigger countries. For other countries,
especially those who were in a better position and had a more stable internal situation and
clearer idea of foreign policy, the Non-Aligned Movement could be an excellent way to help
them remain visible and important, adopt a stance and play the game that was usually
reserved for the biggest countries. The Cold War enabled small countries to play an important
part during one period in world history. The same situation applied to Yugoslavia. The Non-
Aligned Movement and the country's leading role in it could prevent war in the majority of
cases, or be an alarm bell that would be loud enough to activate world consciousness, hence
the flattering accolades from the most important Western and world politicians in the early
1990s. The Non-Aligned Movement represented an important idea and dynamic policy that
allowed a small country like Yugoslavia to become a world player, albeit with a limited
range.”

On the matter of immediate examples of Yugoslavia’s global power:

1. “Nixon's visit to Belgrade, Zagreb, and Kumrovec coincided with Lusaka and the
Yugoslav side really believed that the success of that meeting was the reason behind Nixon's
decision to visit Yugoslavia for the first time in the history of the White House and a socialist
country for the second time in its history. Nine years later, Zbigniew Brzezinski, chief
advisor to President Jimmy Carter, said that Yugoslavia, together with the United States and
the Soviet Union, was the only country that had affirmed itself as a global factor. Belgrade's
position in the Non-Aligned Movement was constructive. In the light of the dying détente,
parallel to an increase in the number of conflicts in the Third World, behaviour of Cuba and
Vietnam, Yugoslavia really seemed like an “American communist ally”.
Source: JV, SSIP, Služba za istraživanje i dokumentaciju (Federal Secretariat for Foreign
Affairs, Department for Research and Documentation), Str. pov. br. 843, 29 December 1979
Pregled obaveštajnih elemenata za procenu bezbednosnog položaja SFRJ (A Survey of the
Intelligence Elements for the Security Status of the SFRY).

2. The government installed in Kabul by the Soviet Union after its intervention was never
recognized by Western countries nor by Yugoslavia. Belgrade recognized the “Afghan
people”, but not Babrak Karmal, so that diplomatic representation in Afghanistan remained at
the level of chargé d'affaires. There were no top-level visits. The Federal Secretary for
Foreign Affairs, Raif Dizdarević, for example, refused to greet his Afghan colleague at the
airport as late as 1988. There were no official receptions or joint statements after the meeting.
The public humiliation of the Afghans was Yugoslavia's message to Moscow.
Source: Drašković 2009:305, 333. Although Drašković spent more than four years as Chargé
d'Affairs in Kabul, in his memoirs he constantly misdated the Saur Revolution by one year (it
occurred in 1978, and not in 1977).

3. Ultimately, shortly before its dissolution, Yugoslavia did something useful for the Non-
Aligned Movement. At the same time, it did a lot of things that could be considered selfish.
Belgrade wanted to remain a global player, that is, to be present on the international scene.
Proportional visibility, which was ensured by holding the Chair of the Non-Aligned
Movement, the fact that in this capacity the country would be invited to attend numerous
international meetings, could help those forces in the country itself which pleaded for
responsibility, tried to stabilize the situation and thus transmit true messages to international
factors. The Western countries also hoped for Belgrade instead of some radical country. Only
the First and Ninth NAM Conference, which were successful and modern in many respects,
took place in Belgrade in 1989.

Source: Jakovina 2011:622-627

4. During 1990, leading Yugoslav diplomats were given recognition for what the NAM had
meant for the world in concrete circumstances at the end of a historical period. On 18 January
1990, Waclaw Havel, the first democratic president of Czechoslovakia, told Budimir Lončar,
Federal Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that he dreamed of a world “in which all countries will
be non-aligned”. According to him, “Yugoslavia played a very important role and was non-
aligned during the Cold War”. When the world mobilized to punish Iraqi aggression against
Kuwait, American Secretary of State James Baker thanked the SFRY on 3 October 1990 for
its “views on Iraqi aggression... and the actions are taken in its capacity as the Chair of the
NAM”. Hans Dietrich Genscher, West German Vice-Chancellor and Minister of Foreign
Affairs, was probably the most vocal. On 1 September 1990, he “highly evaluated the role of
Yugoslavia as the Chair of the NAM and its efforts within the NAM and the UN at finding a
peaceful solution” to the Iraq crisis. “He stated that it was a true blessing for the world that at
this critical time Yugoslavia chaired the NAM“.
Source: BL, SSIP, Information on the conversation between Federal Secretary Budimir
Lončar and H.D. Genschner, Vice-Premier and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the FRG, held
in Belgrade on 31 August and 1 September 1990; Belgrade, 6 September 1990.
5. The First NAM Summit Conference held in Belgrade is a good illustration of all the
important problems faced by Yugoslavia as an informal, yet the real leader of this movement.
The whole idea could not have succeeded without the participation of India, a country that
was larger than all the NAM member countries put together. However, the Indians were adult
enough to have their own political ideas regardless of the NAM and were often upset about
the radicalism of some member countries, the excessive emphasis on anti-colonialism, and
the resentment towards former colonial, that is, Western countries. Some countries turned to
the Soviets, who began to penetrate the Third World on an increasing scale. The Egyptians
were also primarily interested in Arab issues. Indonesia was sliding toward extremism and
the end of Sukarno's rule, after which it moved strongly towards the other end of the political
spectrum. African countries were often radical, but were never sufficiently influential or had
the necessary administrative capacity to play a dominant role. After the overthrow of Kwame
Nkrumah in 1966, Ghana lost its prestige. Algeria, the host of the Fourth Summit Conference
in 1973, was in conflict with Morocco as well as with Egypt. Iraq, which became more
visible after the overthrow of the Hashemite dynasty, was vying for the leading position in
the Arab world, sometimes using the NAM to this end. If the war between Iraq and Iran had
not broken out in 1980, the Seventh NAM Summit Conference would have been held in
Baghdad and not in New Delhi in 1983. In the end, Yugoslavia was the only country whose
interest in the Non-Aligned Movement was constant and increasing, had no ups and downs,
and whose political options were strongly tied to the movement. Therefore, in a certain sense,
Yugoslavia was non-aligned to a greater degree in the 1970s than ten years earlier. Therefore,
the country was sharply criticized for its allegedly Europhobic policy. It could seem like that
at first glance and to an uninformed observer. To those who read the long and frequent
statements published by the non-aligned countries, Yugoslav foreign policy could seem
ideologized and that it was pulling the country out of its natural, European environment.
Underneath the not-so-deep ideological shroud lay a foreign policy whose actions were
sophisticated, which was pragmatic, and which enabled a small but ambitious country to play
a globally important role in the United Nations. Without its special role in the Third World,
Yugoslav foreign policy would not have acquired a global dimension. For example, during
his visit to Yugoslavia in 1981, the Libyan leader asked the Yugoslavs to mediate in the
dispute between Tripoli and Washington. The Yugoslav Ambassador to the United States,
Budimir Lončar, informed the State Department about Libyan efforts to normalize relations
with the United States, although the US Government closed the Libyan People's Bureau
(Embassy) in Washington.

Source: JV, SSIP, Kabinet saveznog sekretara (Office of the Federal Secretary), Pov. br.
424364/1, 9 May 1981.

6. Yugoslav trade in secret data on terrorism was probably the most secretive. Those who
were labeled as terrorists in the West were often regarded as ordinary “freedom fighters” by
the Belgrade authorities, which used to take care of these fighters themselves or educate their
children. Dissidents, like Dr. Najibullah from Afghanistan, were hidden in various parts of
Yugoslavia. In May 1988, Josip Vrhovac, the former Federal Secretary for Foreign Affairs
and then a member of the Presidency of the SFRY, met with American President Ronald
Reagan in Washington. The American president first thanked his Yugoslav colleague for
everything Belgrade had done “in the case of Colonel Hawari, as an important step in the
struggle against international terrorism”. Belgrade had helped locate a group headed by
Abdullah Abd Al Hamid Labib, known as Hawari, which was responsible for planting a
bomb aboard TWA Flight 840 flying from Rome to Athens in 1986.
Sources: Jakovina 2011:271, JV, SSIP, Pov. br. 431832, 27 May 1988, Report on the visit of
Josip Vrhovec, a member of the Presidency of SFR Yugoslavia, to the United States, 5 and 6
May 1988; Note on the conversation between Josip Vrhovec, member of the Presidency of
the SFRY, and US president Ronald Reagan, 6 May 1988.

7. Yugoslav firms were excellent and desirable for projects in distant countries. They built
congress centers in Accra, Libreville, Lusaka, and Harare, the Naval Academy in Tripoli, the
Ministry of Oil in Baghdad, irrigation systems in Peru, a hydro-electric power plant and dam
in Panama, port facilities in Tartous in Syria, Assab in Ethiopia and Bombay in India, a trade
center in Lagos, a hospital in Guinea, and trade centers in Mali. The Libyan authorities
wanted Yugoslavia to build a chemical industrial plant and laser equipment company. They
also wished to conclude an agreement on the use of nuclear energy with Yugoslavia. At
times, Yugoslav companies were more expensive than others, but the Libyans wanted them,
convinced that Belgrade would not abuse their hospitality. The most profitable projects were
realized with Iraq. Since the outbreak of the conflict between Iraq and Iran, the Yugoslav
Secretariat for Foreign Affairs became unusually silent. It is quite clear that Iraq was the
aggressor, but due to pressure from military circles, Baghdad was not condemned because
Saddam Hussein, the sole master of Iraq since 1979, was an excellent buyer of equipment and
all kinds of materials from Yugoslavia. Iraq also became Yugoslavia's biggest trade partner in
the Third World. Some 16,000 Yugoslavs worked there and many of them built 34 military
projects throughout the country. Yugoslav companies constructed the most sensitive facilities
for Iraq: underground nuclear-proof bunkers for Saddam and factories where Kalashnikov
weapons and missile systems were manufactured.

Sources: 114 Jakovina 2011:480; Jakovina 2003.520; Mandić 2005:465-566; Rendulić

2004:306, 115 JV, Predsedništvo SFRJ (Presidency of the SFRY), Str. pov. br. 280/1, 2
October 1981, stenographic notes on a conversation between Sergej Kraigher, President of
the Presidency of the SFRY, and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the leader of the Great First of
September Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, held on 28
September 1981, beginning at 11:45 a.m. at the White Palace in Belgrade, 116 JV,
Predsedništvo SFRJ (Presidency of the SFRY), Str. pov. br. 3/7, 20 January 1982.
Stenographic notes on a conversation between Petar Stambolić, Vice-President of the
Presidency of the SFRY, and Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, Vice-Chairman of the Iraqi
Revolutionary Command Council, held on 11 January 1982, beginning at 10:30 a.m. in
Baghdad – Iraq; Rendulić 2004:322-324.

8. The music school, built in the capital city of Gabon, was named after Croatian composer
Josip Štolcer Slavenski. The author of the first Ethiopian constitution was Croatian lawyer
Leon Geršković, founder of the Faculty of Political Science in Zagreb, the first such faculty
in a socialist country. Yugoslav experts were asked to establish universities in Angola and
Madagascar. Yugoslav experts also taught in Addis Ababa, while thousands of foreign
students came to Yugoslavia to study. In the late 1970s, three Ethiopian ministers were
Yugoslav students. Yasser Arafat, leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, who was
supported by the SFRY in various ways, expressed his gratitude to Tito for “training
Palestine pilots” in Yugoslavia. Libyan dictator Gaddafi did the same thing. His naval cadets
studied at the Naval Academy in Split. While visiting secret military facilities in Bosnia,
including an underground explosives factory, Gaddafi said that Libya was ready to receive
“not thousands, but hundreds of thousands of Yugoslav experts and workers”. Malta, which
became a NAM member, was extremely important for Yugoslavia, which was interested in
having a greater number of NAM members from Europe. Therefore, Belgrade built a small
factory on the island. In the early 1980s, Maltese leader Dom Mintoff asked the SFRY to
donate a ship to La Valetta, which it did.
The Yugoslav state also helped in supplying weapons and arming. As emphasized by Robert
Mugabe during Tito's funeral, Yugoslavia donated “50,000 tons of wheat and armaments” to
Zimbabwe. Yugoslavia also armed Algeria, Guinea, Guinea Bissao, Namibia's resistance
movement SWAPO, Zambia, Sri Lanka, Angola. The Ethiopians also obtained 70 tanks when
they were attacked by Somalia. This old equipment was part of the equipment given by the
United States in the 1950s; under the agreement, they could not be re-sold to anyone.
Although their value was initially estimated at 12 million dollars, Mengistu Haile Mariam
and the Addis Abeba authorities never paid for them. The Americans knew about this
transaction, but never put more pressure on Yugoslavia for this very reason. The most
important assistance was probably provided by Tito to Egypt in 1973. President Sadat's
special envoy came to Belgrade to ask for assistance. Tito said that he “asked for tanks”.
Sadat personally thanked the Yugoslav leader for assistance in the Parliament in Cairo,
mentioning that the Yugoslav President had sent 140 tanks with full equipment, including
ammunition, straight to the battlefield, thus preventing Israel’s occupation of Cairo. The
Yugoslav planes Galeb and Jastreb were sold to Zambia and Libya. Some of them were still
operable during NATO’s attack on Libya in 2011.

Sources: 117 JV, SSIP, Savezni savet za medjunarodne odnose Federal Council on
International Relations), Tape recording of the 25th Session of the Federal Council on
International Relations held on 24 October 1979; SSIP, 9 February 1979, Notes on a
conversation between President of the Republic Josip Broz Tito and Yasser Arafat, Chairman
of the PLO Executive Committee, in Damascus, 9 February 1979; Jakovina 2011:129-130,
242-243, 118 JV, SSIP, Kabinet saveznog sekretara (Office of the Federal Secretary), Str.
pov br.23, 30 April 1981. Notes on a conversation between Colonel Gaddafi with President
Mijatović, in the presence of the Yugoslav and Libyan Ministers of National Defense and
Foreign Affairs, 29 April 1981 (the conversation took place at Gaddafi's request), 119 JV,
Predsedništvo SFRJ (Presidency of the SFRY), 25 November 1981, Presentation by Federal
Secretary J. Vrhovec at the session of the Presidency of the SFRY, held on 25 November
1981 and devoted to the first item on the agenda, 120 JV, SSIP, Stenographic notes on a
conversation between Lazar Koliševski, President of the Presidency of the SFRY, and
Ambrosio Lukoki, Member of the Politbiro of MPLA and Minister of Education of PR
Angola, held on 9 May 1980, beginning at 6:00 p.m, 121 JV, Kabinet Predsednika Republike,
Služba za spoljnopolitička pitanja (Cabinet of the President of the Republic, Office for
Foreign Policy Issues), Str. pov. br. 274/2, Belgrade, 8 June 1979. State secret. Notes on a
téte-à-téte conversation between Comrade President and Algerian President Chadli on 30
May 1979, in the villa of the recreation center in Algeria; JV, SSIP, Kabinet saveznog
sekretara (Office of the Federal Secretary), Str. pov. br. 23, 30 April 1981. Notes on a
conversation between Colonel Gaddafi and President Mijatović, in the presence of the
Algerian and Yugoslav Ministers of National Defense and Foreign Affairs, 29 April 1981
(the conversation was held at Gaddafi's request). Rendulić 2004:320-321, 122 CL, National
Security Affairs, Brzezinski Papers; Memorandum for Mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, The White
House, Report to Congress on Unauthorized Yugoslav Transfer to Ethiopia of US Origin
Tanks; 12 July 1977, 123 JV, Kabinet Predsednika Republika (Služba za spoljnopolitička
pitanja (Cabinet of the President of the Republic, Office for Foreign Policy Issues), Str. pov.
br. 8/1, Belgrade, 11 June 1979. State secret. Notes on a conversation between President Tito
and President Gaddafi held on 1 June 1979, while sailing aboard a yacht in Libya; notes on
the continued conversation between President Tito and President Gaddafi, 2 June 1979, in
President Gaddafi's tent; Jakovina 2011:171, 124 Rendulić 2004:305-310.

9. In the 1980s Deng Xiaoping's foreign policy imitated Yugoslavia's stance of being non-
aligned and non-confrontational and with Hu Yaobang’s 1983 appraisal of ‘Josip Tito’s
principles of independence and equality among all communist parties, and of opposing
imperialism, colonialism, and hegemonism’.

Source: Jie Li (7 December 2018). "Soviet Foreign Policy in the Early 1980s: A View from
Chinese Sovietology

10. The NAM idea was so broad and acceptable in various respects – it was about the
struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neocolonialism, apartheid, racism, hegemony and
occupation – for countries wishing to act within such a framework, it was an excellent
medium for the activities of a country which evidently understood that, in a certain way, the
Cold War framework and peace were crucial for its survival. For smaller and poorer
countries, the NAM was the only way to make their voice heard, feel equal and be treated
like richer and bigger countries. For other countries, especially those who were in a better
position and had a more stable internal situation and clearer idea of foreign policy, the Non-
Aligned Movement could be an excellent way to help them remain visible and important,
adopt a stance and play the game that was usually reserved for the biggest countries. The
Cold War enabled small countries to play an important part during one period in world
history. The same situation applied to Yugoslavia. The Non-Aligned Movement and the
country's leading role in it could prevent war in majority of cases and be an alarm bell that
would be loud enough to activate world consciousness, thus the flattering accolades from the
most important Western and world politicians in the early 1990s. Nevertheless, the Non-
Aligned Movement represented an important idea and dynamic policy that allowed a small
country to become a world player, albeit with a limited range.”

On the matter of variedness of martial strategies of the Early Slavs:

“The usage of poison arrows and guerrilla warfare was deployed only in defensive wars
against a martially superior enemy - like against the combined Roman-Avar army during
Maurice's campaign which was launched deep into Sclavene territories north of the Danube.
The earliest written on the matter is authored by Jordanes who writes in detail about the war
between the Goths and the Anteans, where the Antean fought in open battles against the
Goths and won all early battles, but would ultimately lose when Bozh, their king, was taken
prisoner. In the 6th and 7th centuries, the Slavs, both the Anteans and the Sclavenes, fought in
pitched battles as Roman allies, and as cavalry, against the Goths during the Gothic War, and
against the Avars during the reign of Heraclius, who invited the Serbs and Croats to
exterminate and defeat all Avars south of the Danube, and rule all liberated provinces as his
ennobled vassals. In most cases, there was no reason for Slavs to fight pitched battles, for
skirmishes and sieges were more vital to their war and expansion efforts in the Carpathians
and Southeastern Europe. Last but not least, we know that the Slavs were using and forging
their own swords, which indicates the existence of close-combat strategies, by the time of the
reign of Daurentius - the high chieftain of all the Sclavenes: Daurentius (to the Avar envoy):
"Who is, then, the man which basks in sunlight that threatens to conquer our strength? We are
used to ruling over others, not to being ruled over - of that we are certain for as long as wars
are waged and swords are forged".

On the matter behind the premise of the etymology of the English word for “slave”:

“The rationalization behind the English etymology is that in the time of King Otto the Great,
the Germans took many Slavs captive and sold them into slavery. This was around the 10th
century. In reality, the slaves were prisoners of war numbered somewhere between mere
hundreds and a few thousand, therefore an inferior basis for the etymology, given the low
estimates and the multitude of Slavs involved in that war, and the fact that the word itself
starts to appear in Western, primarily English literature only in the 13th century, three
centuries after the aforementioned event, and roughly a century after the English adoption of
substantial Latin and French vocabulary, and in a timeline where there weren't any large-scale
wars between Western Europe and the Slavs, which would produce this alleged stream of
Slavic prisoners of war. From a purely etymological viewpoint, the English word for "slave"
comes, and can only come from the Latin word "clavis/ clavus" (a key/ nail), which bore the
Latin word "inclavare" (to lock in), ultimately giving rise to the word "sclavus" (slave - "a
locked one"), which most likely entered the English language, along with a major portion of
Romance words, with the Norman invasion. There is also the possibility that the word’s
etymology derived from the Medieval Greek verb σκυλεύο - "to extract spoils of war", which
entered Latin at some preceding point in history, and resonates in the manner in which Slavs
were enslaved – as prisoners of war. Either way, these etymologies are substantially more
accurate, and actually substantiated in history and linguistics.

In summary, the aforementioned etymology is historically, chronologically, and

etymologically inaccurate, and to put things into perspective, one should compare these
numbers of Otto's Slavic slaves to confirmed hundreds of thousands of Gauls and Greeks
who were sold into slavery just in the transitional, late Roman Republican period towards the
Imperial timeline, or better yet, compare it to the thousands of Norsemen who were sold into
slavery after but a single siege and raid of Konungahella in the 12th century by the
Pomeranians, a Slavic people. Or better yet if one seeks a modern comparison, then to a few
millions of Western Europeans who were enslaved by the Barbary Pirates, or to the hundreds
of thousands of the Irish, who were reduced to a status lower than that of SSA slaves, and
were, in reality Western Europe’s chief reservoir of slaves throughout the Middle Ages.”.
Further on the matter of the premise that Slavs have migrated as passive tribes of farmers:

Procopius of Caesarea, "De Bellis", III, 3, 9-19:

"The Slavs took the city [of Toperus] in the following manner. Most of them hid themselves
in hilly country opposite the walls, and a few of them, going up before the eastern gates,
annoyed the Romans on the parapets. The soldiers who were on guard there, thinking that
they (Slavs) were no more numerous than those whom they saw, all immediately taking up
their weapons, went out against them. The barbarians retreated, giving the appearance to their
pursuers that they retreated out of fear. Those in ambush came out now, behind the pursuers,
no longer allowing them entry into the city. Those who appeared to be fleeing now turned
about and placed the Romans in a position of double attack. Having slain all of them, the
barbarians attacked the wall. The inhabitants of the city, deprived of the soldiers, were at a
great loss and defended themselves against the attackers with those that remained. First,
heating oil and pitch, they poured it on the besiegers and, all of them hurling stones against
them, came close to repulsing the danger. But then the barbarians, having driven them back
from the parapets by a multitude of arrows and having placed ladders against the wall, took
the city by storm. They slew all 15,000 men, plundered all the wealth, and enslaved all the
women and children."
Procopius of Caesarea, "Historia Arcana", 18, 20-21:
"Illyria and all of Thrace, that is, from the Ionian Gulf to the suburbs of Constantinople,
including Greece and the Chersonese, were overrun by the Slavs, almost every year, from the
time when Justinian took over the Roman Empire; and intolerable things they did to the
inhabitants. For in each of these invasions, I estimate, more than two hundred thousand
Romans were slain or enslaved, so that all this country became a desert like that of Scythia."
Procopius of Caesarea, "Historia Arcana", 23, 6:
"The Slavs ravaged all of Europe; captured cities were either razed to their foundations, or
made to pay terrible tribute; men were carried off into slavery together with all their property,
and every district was deserted by its inhabitants because of the daily raids: yet no tax was
remitted, except in the case of cities that had been captured by the enemy, and then only for
one year."
Menander Protector, fragments 47 and 48:
"About the fourth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius Constantine, some hundred thousand
Slavs broke into Thrace, and pillaged that and many other regions. As Greece was being laid
waste by the Slavs, with trouble liable to flare up anywhere, and as Tiberius had at his
disposal by no means sufficient forces to contain them, he sent a delegation to the Khagan of
the Avars [to ask him for help against the Slavs]."
Maurice, "Strategikon", 11, 4:
"The Sclavenes and the Antes live in the same way and have the same customs. They are
both independent, absolutely refusing to be enslaved or ruled by foreigners, least of all in
their own land. They are populous and hardy, bearing readily heat, cold, rain, nakedness, and
scarcity of provisions. They are kind and hospitable to travellers in their country and conduct
them safely from one place to another, wherever they wish. (...) They, unlike other peoples,
do not keep those who are in captivity among them in perpetual slavery, but they set a
definite period of time for them, after which they give them the choice: either, when they so
desire, to return to their own homes if they purchase their freedom, or to stay among them as
free people and friends."

On the matter of the identification of Early Slavs that were part of the Sukow-Dziedzice
material culture in Polabia:

“The whole region was originally settled by three major groups of the Slavic people: the
West Lechites in the North, the White Serbs in the South-West and the White Croats in
present day Oberlausitz. The Northern part of the region, which included the Obotrites and
the Veleti tribes was generally characterized by log cabin dwellings, predominant use of
Sukow-type ware, higher percentage of pig bones and, partially (in case of the North Veleti),
burials of the Alt-Köbelich type. On the other hand, the White Serbs and Croats shared
similar types of animal husbandry (based on cattle farming and with significantly higher
percentage of goat & sheep farming), house building (rectangular semi-subterranean & pit-
houses) and ceramic production (the Prague-Korchak vessels). But the burial customs were
different: the White Croats performed cremation burial in kurgan burial mounds while the
White Serbs left flat-grave cemeteries with cremations in urns. In addition, two zones of
interaction emerged in course of migration: one — in Havel basin, where the Veleti settlers
met the people of the White Serbian descent, and second, the Lechite-Croatian, — in
Niederlausitz. The author suggests, the appreciable ethnocultural diversity of the Middle and
Lower Havel region with a major ethnocultural border passing across its territory could have
a significant influence on the early state development of the Hevelli-Stodorani principality
with its presumably military background and comparatively more centralized mode of
government.”

Further on the matter of the premise of Western European rationalization for their proposed
etymology for the word “slave”:

The Western terminology for "slave", to a certain extent, is similar in form to the self-
designation of the Slavs ("Sloven", "Slavjan" etc.) Their existence served as the basis for
numerous anti-Slavic statements, theories, and consecutive waves of propaganda, which have
sometimes acquired the scope of genuine mythologies. Moreover, these ideas were even
given an academic platform. As it happened more than once, when “not entirely” adequate
premises gained an academic platform and were entrenched there since. The premise of
"Slavs" being the root of words for "slaves" found a permanent foothold in Western
Academia, giving rise to a series of pseudoscientific, inform, but questionable, in essence,
representations and statements. The essence of these premises is that these words are related
to the ethnonym of the Slavs, allegedly, "due to the fact that in the Early Middle Ages, the
Slavs became objects of the slave trade, which led to the use of their ethnonym as a
designation for slaves." Sometimes, it was even argued that Western Europeans, whose
languages contain these words, directly, massively, and regularly turned the Slavs into slaves,
and in general, other far-reaching conclusions were made, such as that the "Slavs are slaves"
and the Western Europeans are "their masters."
Moreover, in the 18-19th centuries in Western European journalism, the idea was persistently
exaggerated that even the word "Slav" itself comes from the Latin, or Greek word for "slave".
This was the “think tank” of an 18th-century French historian and publicist. Polemics
regarding this myth and premise are found even in Dostoevsky’s "Diary of a Writer". As for
the idea of the origin of the word "Slav" coming from the word for slaves – at the present
time, it is not considered scientific and has long been recognized as erroneous, or even
deliberately Slavophobic. The birthplace of this terminology is the ERE. In the Early Middle
Ages, in the so-called Medieval Greek, the word "σκλάβος" (read as "sklavos" - "slave")
appeared. Further - from the ERE and Medieval Greek, this word found its way to Medieval
Latin (and from there, to Medieval French) - the official, as well as international legal,
political, commercial, and scientific language of Western Europe. Moreover, in different
languages, it appears in different timelines. In accordance with Webster's Dictionary, the
word appears in English only in the 14th century, while Webster gives an etymological origin
of the basis of the premise of this stream of Slavic slaves dating back to the 10th century,
specifically during the reign of Henry the Fowler and Otto I, therefore moot and
chronologically off by several centuries. Thus, the direct appearance of these words in
Western European languages, for reasons allegedly of the abundant trade in Slavic slaves, is
excluded. Since the word has a clearly traceable and understandable history. And it did not
arise in the West, but in ERE.
The word for “slave” in Medieval Greek comes from the Greek verb skyleúo - meaning “to
get spoils of war”, the first-person singular of which looks like skyláo. This etymology, in
particular, is established thanks to the following sources: F. Kluge, Etymologisches
Wörterbuch der Deutschen Sprache. 2002, siehe Sklave. (Etymological Dictionary of the
German Language, 2002, article "Sklave"), look at the word Sklave: “... zu gr. skyleuein,
skylan, V. zu gr. Skylon ", Köbler, Gerhard, Deutsches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 1995.
(Etymological Dictionary of the German language by G. Gebler, 1995). Section "Slaven".
Thus, it turns out that the Greek word "sklav", "slave" - comes from the Greek word, the
original meaning of which was "seized in war". And, as you can see, with this etymology, in
its origin there is no connection with the ethnonym of the Slavs. In fact, it turns out that the
"Slavs" and all these numerous Western European "sklavas" are only homonyms. There are
innumerable examples of such consonant coincidences (both within the same languages, and
between words from different languages). This is a fairly common occurrence, especially
among Indo-European languages. Thus, in the ERE, a new word was found and associated
with the verb that means "to seize trophies of war", which was from then on used to denote
slaves. At the same time, the previous and old word for slave, which previously meant slaves,
was repurposed to denote indentured serfs attached to the land they’ve toiled.
Further on, in Maurice’s Strategikon, which provides an extremely detailed description of the
Slavs and their kindred Antes, threats, and neighbors of the ERE, we find immensely
valuable information about the Slavs. Including their attitude to slavery and the institution of
having slaves: “The tribes of Slavs and Antes live together, and their life is the same: they
live freely and do not allow anyone to enslave or subjugate them. There are a lot of them in
their country, and they are very hardy, easily endure heat and cold, and rain and nakedness of
the body, and poverty. They are friendly to those who come to them and enjoy their
hospitality, they warmly welcome them and then escort them from place to place, guarding
those who need it. If there is any harm to the guest through the fault of the host, through his
negligence, the one who entrusted the guest to him raises a war against him and considers it
his sacred duty to avenge the guest. Those who are in their captivity, do not hold in slavery
indefinitely, like other peoples, but limit their slavery to a certain period, after which they are
released, if they want, for a certain sum, or welcomed them to stay with the Slavs, but as
friends and family. "
(...) being freedom-loving, they are in no way inclined to become slaves or obey, especially in
their own land." (Strategicon of Mauritius, Ed. Prepared by V.V. Kuchma.SPb., 2004, p. 189)
In reality, the Romans clearly did not associate the Slavs with slaves, even in the period when
they had just begun to conquer and colonized Roman territories, and least of all when they’ve
seized nearly half of Europe in the coming centuries.
Thus, if we take into account all the aforementioned facts, then the Western thesis in regards
to the origin of the Medieval Greek, and therefore Latin, and therefore Medieval French and
English word for "slave" as being derived from the ethnonym of the Slavs is unconvincing
and historically and etymologically inaccurate. For - in fact, after the conquest of a significant
part of ERE, the Slavs were not slaves there, but its masters for centuries, or in the worst-case
scenario, military colonists and conquerors - in whose lands the Romans (Greeks) themselves
were afraid to enter. The thesis and premise that the word "slave", derived from the ethnonym
of a people who’ve conquered the largest landmass in Europe in the 6th, 7th, and 8th
centuries, is, aside from the aforementioned, also laughable and preposterous. We will not
find a single similar example in history, this simply doesn’t happen, and never will. For
"invader" and "slave" are diametrically opposed. Moreover, if we look at the East Roman
Empire itself, in those parts of it that continued to remain independent of the Slavs, we will
find a substantial number of Slavs holding positions of power and prestige, like Akameros,
Dabragezas, Thomas the Slav, and Neboulos.
But what about the word Sklaveni, which the Greeks have used to denote early Slavs? What
is the origin of the Latin name for the Slavs? Why is it so similar to the form of "Sklavos"?
Yes - it's true, the Greeks referred to "Slavs" and "captives" with very similar, yet ultimately
different words. This is due to the peculiarities of Greek pronunciation. The sound
combination "sl", which articulates the Greek form of the Slavic ethnonym, was very
unnatural and difficult to pronounce Hellephones. For Slavs, this is a completely ordinary
combination of sounds, but for the Greeks it was aberrant. This is entirely normal, and the
usual case for all interactions of different languages.
The same goes for the word of self-designation of the Slavs among the Greeks. And to make
the word more understandable for themselves, the Greeks inserted the sound “k” at its
beginning, between the “s and “l” of “sl”, which made it appear as if it’s the same as the
Medieval Greek word for spoils of war. Thus, from the very beginning, these were just
homonyms. Consonant words. And no more. Since its inception
.On the matter of Germany’s and USA’s involvement in the subversion of the post-Soviet and
post-Yugoslav states of Eastern and Southeastern Europe:

“The leading role of political and cultural occupation and subversion of former Communist
Europe is played by German institutions and NGOs, especially the Konrad-Adenauer-
Stiftung and the Hanns Seidel Stiftung, they are corrupting politics, school system, culture,
and are the leading exporters of all forms of Slavophobia, whether in the media or academic
discourse. Naturally, they are aided in this endeavor by the United States of America, for
obvious reasons.”

On the matter of how the Early Slavs besieged their enemies:

The Slavs, at least to our knowledge, didn’t write down their mastery of siege equipment, the
mastery was transferred from one man to another only during active construction and
manning. The more troops partook in sieges, the greater their knowledge of construction and
manning of siege artillery would be. Therefore, the Slavs acquired crucial knowledge and
experience in sieges, thanks to their neverending raids and invasions of Roman territory.
Based on primary sources like the Miracles of Saint Demetrius, we see a constant
improvement of the Slav’s mastery of siege warfare.
Even if we take into account the fact that different tribes partook in the sieges of
Thessalonica, possibly not being part of the same tribal unions, of whom the majority were
Sclavenes, with the aid of the Avaroslavs from Upper Pannonia, who, in turn, as we know, in
the VII century had ample experience in siege warfare against the Romans in Italy in
accordance to their alliance with the Lombards. Slavs have used all available siege weapons
of this particular era: stone-throwers, rams, assault towers, turtles, siege ladders
The stone-throwers
Probably the most technologically difficult to manufacture and execute were stone-throwers.
In the late Roman period, this machine was called a scorpion or an onager, as well as a stone-
thrower by Procopius of Caesarea in the mid-6th century. As ammunition, it relied on kernels
weighing from 3 to 80 kg, most often from 3 to 26 kg, which depended primarily on the size
of the machine itself. The author of the Miracles of Saint Demetrius denoted these tools
among the Slavs as πετροβόλος, while they called the Greek stone-throwers πετραρία. If the
first name was already found in Diodorus’ work (I century BC), then the latter name in
Demetrius’ work is only used to describe Roman technology. Maurice wrote that all troops
should have petrobols available to them. The same term is used in the Chronicon Paschale
when describing the siege of Constantinople by the Avars, Avaroslavs and the Sclavenes
who’ve allied with the Avars, and by Theophanes the Confessor when describing the
installation of defensive equipment on the same walls in the year of 714. It is clear that these
are machines with some differences to their designs. It is possible that πετραρία was a smaller
tool since the aforementioned sources describe it as additional wall defences; the use of larger
machines leads to increased friction which destabilizes the wall beneath it, and perhaps there
is simply no place to mount it. We cannot say for certain that the aforementioned machine
was more optimal, since the sources of this period, in particular, describe a comparably
primitive technology that cannot be compared with specimens from antiquity, although we
can claim that it was an outstanding example of mechanics and geometry of its time. Here is
how the author of Demetrius’ work draws a situation with this application. The Greeks,
working on a stone-throwing machine, under the name πετραρία, wrote the name of St.
Demetrius on a stone projectile and launched it at the Slavs. It is worth noting that he alone
was in control of this machine: “As soon as the stone was launched, at the same time, another
was thrown from the barbarians to meet, surpassing the rate of fire by more than three times.
He faced the first projectile and was turned aback, and both of them fell into the recess of the
stone-thrower (πετροβόλου) of the barbarians and killed those who were there along with the
manganarium.”
The petrobola of the Slavs:
“They were quadrangular, wide at the base and tapering to the apex, on which there were
very massive cylinders, bound at the edges with iron, to which logs were nailed, like beams
of large crowbar, which had slings suspended from behind, and in the front - strong ropes
with which pulling them all at once according to the signal downward, they launched slings.
Soaring up [slings] continuously sent huge stones, so that the earth could not bear their
blows, much less a human building. And they protected the quadrangular stone-throwers with
boards only on three sides, so that those who are inside were not wounded by arrows [sent]
from the wall. "
Despite the constant hostilities in SE Europe, it can be assumed that the fortifications of
cities, town and fortresses were really well maintained. During the reign of Justinian (reign of
527-565) a large number of cities, towns and fortresses were strengthened in SE Europe, and
primarily because of the threat of the Slavs, who were Rome’s most dangerous threat on the
northern borders. The walls of the fortifications were built from hewn stone blocks that were
installed on the external and internal sides, the gaps were filled with stone fragments and
filled with mortar, while the leveling layer was constructed of bricks. The dimensions of the
bricks are the following: thickness 5 cm, length 32-36 cm. Thus, the rows of stones
alternately alternated with brickwork, which was fastened with lime mortar. The foundation
was also constructed of quality materials. The walls at the base were thicker than at the top.
For example, in Constantinople, the inner wall was 4,7 meters thick at the base, and at the
top, only 4 meters. The towers were built as separate structures in order to have independent
defense modules, communication between the lower and upper levels of the tower was
excluded. The towers protruded from the wall at a distance of 5 to 10 meters.
The siege towers
Another complex machine that the Slavs have used was a siege tower or gelepol. A Gelepol
is a tower with a drawbridge, built of wood, and it moved on wheels. For protection, iron or
raw hides were used, on the upper platform there were archers and assault detachments, and
smaller siege weapons could be found there. A detailed description of them can be found in
the surviving work of Greek polyorgetics - specialists in sieges and defensive urban warfare.
Of course, it was built within the framework of the existing trends in polyorgetics, and, of
course, initially, the Slavs learned all about its construction from captured Greek engineers,
as we wrote above, but it seems that in the period of the 7th century, the Slavic tribes have
already deployed designs independent from the Roman/Greek mainstream, and at the end of
the VII century, Demetrius writes about the military engineering of the Draguvite tribe during
the siege of Thessalonica: "... in short, it was something that none of our generations knew or
had ever seen, and so far, we have not been able to name most of them."
It is difficult to agree with the opinion that “to bring such a colossus to the walls was worth
enormous efforts, which were often not justified.”
If one does not even take into account the vicissitudes of fate, which are widespread in war,
then, it seems to me, it is worth considering the following factors.
Firstly, judging by the Miracles of Saint Demetrius and the Chronicon Paschale: the besieged
did not think so and took these towers very seriously.
Secondly, an accurate calculation of the towers’ height in relation to the fortifications was
very important. Vegetius (V c.) Gives examples of problems and failures when the mobile
tower (turres) fails to correspond to the size of the chief one.
Thirdly, it was extremely difficult to build such towers, for not even experienced Greek
engineers were always capable of accurately building machine, with all their experience and
mathematical knowledge, while the Slavs erected these structures without it. During the siege
of Thessalonica around 620, the Slavs built huge towers that towered above the towers of the
city, obviously, for the convenience of emptying them of defenders, strong-armed young men
were on the platforms, and, in such a case, Maurice recommended the construction of anti-
towers.
Fourthly, the use of these structures was a common occurrence to the Slavs who conquered
the territories of Greece and Macedonia, otherwise how would they know how these
machines were built when they were a curiosity even to Thessalonica’s Romans at the end of
the VII century?
Fifthly, the practical need in conjunction with the psychological factor, in this case, is not in
doubt. Despite the fact that archeology practically does not provide us with data, we can
speak about a fairly high level of woodworking among the Early Slavs. So, along with half-
dugouts, log cabin dwelling, and ground-based houses with underground pits were a fairly
common type of housing. Among the few early fortifications, Volyn’s fortification stands
out, as well as the Khotomel settlement. Log house designs were fairly similar. In the same
Zimno, the remains of a woodworking lathe were found. At this stage in the development of
production forces, the Slavs could quickly, perceive, design and build structures out of wood.
In Demetrius’ work, when describing siege weapons, their metal parts are also mentioned.
The ram
A ram is also a tool that is often used by the Slavs during sieges. Which is natural due to its
simplicity. The first mention, when the Slavs used it in toe with Avars, refers to the late 6 th
century, When the Slavs invited the Avars to assist them during the siege of Thessalonica.
Here is how the ram is described by Procopius of Caesarea, Belisarius’s former secretary and
chief primary source on Roman history in this timeline: “Having built a kind of small
quadrangular house, they pull on it from all sides and from above to make this machine
lightweight for those moving it, and those inside it would be safe and, if possible, less likely
to be hit by arrows and spears of enemies. Inside this structure, another log is hung across
from above on freely moving chains, trying to attach it as much as possible in the middle of
the structure. The edge of this log is made sharp and covered with thick iron, like the tip of
arrows and spears, or they make this iron quadrangular, like an anvil. This car moves on four
wheels attached to each column, and from the inside, it is driven by at least fifty people.
When this machine is pushed firmly against the wall, then, moving the log I mentioned, with
the help of some device, they take it back and then let it go, striking it with great force into
the wall. With frequent blows, it can very easily in the place where it hits, rock, and destroy
the wall ... "
Already at the end of the VI century, there is proof that the Slavs have used a "ram" with an
"iron forehead." Incidentally, we saw that the Slavs and the Lombards, in the early or at the
beginning of the VII century, have used these rams (aries) during their conquest of Mantua in
Italy. Further on, at the beginning of the VII century, Demetrius’ Chronicle reports that the
Slavs use precisely complex, rolling "rams", "built from huge trunks and manned on well-
rotating wheels."
The turtle
The next siege weapon which was used by the Slavs was the “tortoise”. This machine created
the necessary cover under which the besiegers would destroy a city’s walls with the help of
tools, among which were an ax, a crowbar, a pickaxe, and a shovel - all traditional weapons
of military craft. The turtle, as Vegetius described it, was: “Made of wooden beams and
boards; so that it does not burn, it is covered with fresh skin. "

The Slavs covered turtles for extra protection: “Special twigs made of vines, willows,
vineyards, and other flexible shrubs. Braids freely pounced on turtles, or perhaps they were
hungover turtles on poles.”

Here are how the “turtles” made by the Slavs were described as:
“Turtles covered with freshly skinned skins of bulls and camels, because of their strength,
could not be damaged, as you know, by throwing stones, fire or boiling tar because of the
moisture of the skins, and even more so by the few people armed with spears as usual and
bows. " We also have information of Slavs using fiery mixtures which wer specifically used
to set fire to city and fortress walls alike, and, of course, siege ladders.
The odnodrevki
The odnodrevki is traditional to Slavs, but it can be assumed that at the end of the 7th century,
Slavic pirates in Greece and the Adriatic would utilize new ship designs, and ships seized
from the Latins and the Greeks. For the first time, the massive use of storming of the
odnodrevki was seen during the siege of Thessalonica in the early 7th century, and beneath
Constantinople in 626, when the Slavs attacked the city from the northern side of its Golden
Horn. George Pisidia writes the following: "And there they are, like a fishing net tied,
scattered hollowed boats”. A lot of controversy arises regarding the matter of where and
when have the Slavs built these boats. It can be assumed that during the siege of
Constantinople, construction was carried out on the spot since there, forests were still
abundant back tehn. However, in the late VII century. during yet another siege of
Thessalonica, the tribes of the Slavs who’ve conquered and colonized Greece and Macedonia
were noted for their usage of inertwined ships. Moreover, they are used, judging by the text,
not only during the assault but also for patrolling the waters in order to blockade the city. So,
during the assault, the Slavs installed siege weapons on these ships: “And right away they
approached the wall in rows along with the siege weapons, cars, and fire prepared by them -
some along the coast on connected [ships], others on land ...”
This design the Slavs have utilized is the same as the one described by Athenaeus
Mechanicus: "... connect two large boats, install this vehivle on them and drive it to the walls,
usually in calm weather." Then, he once again points out that during the turmoil beneath the
walls, the boats would, depending on the situation move in different directions depending on
where the structure collapses.

On the matter of Early Slavic fortifications from the 6th to the 8th century:

At the end of the 6th century, in different Slavic lands, fortifications begin to appear in
massive numbers. Of course, archeology does not provide us with information about the
social needs for the creation of such fortifications, but that is not important to the matter at
hand. A straightforward explanation, like when the fortification is viewed exclusively as a
source of protection of the surrounding population from raids, is not always true: in addition
to external threats, it is necessary to take into account the specifics of the state of the
examined Slavic society, and that is often impossible due to lack of historical sources. The
sudden appearance of so many fortifications can only be explained by the following points:

1. The formation of large, permanent tribal unions, and its capital would require protection,
primarily as a center of worship, power and administration.
2. During the Slavic migration, especially westwards, there was an obvious need to create
outposts and footholds of powers, which were primarily fortified tribal centers in foreign
lands, as is the case with the expansion of the Sclavenes and Wends to the west of Europe or
the northwest and northeast of Eastern Europe in the case of the Anteans.
Ukrainian archaeologist B.A. Tymoshchuk developed a periodization of these fortified
settlements, identifying three types: a haven, an administrative center, and a sanctuary.
Community centers had wooden walls reinforced with clay slopes on the outside. The most
famous of these community centers-settlements is Zimno (a settlement on the Luga River, a
tributary of Western Buka, Volyn, Ukraine). The author of the excavations of Zimnovsky
settlement, V.V. Aulikh, attributed its beginning to the end of the VI century, but later, the
occurrence of Zimno was attributed to a date not earlier than the beginning of the VII
century. Timoshchuk B.A. writes about the Zimno fortifications: “The basis of this line was a
wooden wall made of horizontally laid logs sandwiched between pairs of pillars. On the
outside, the defensive wall was reinforced, as shown by the profile of the shaft, with a loose
clay slope, and on the inside, longhouses directly adjacent to the wooden wall. During the fire
that destroyed the defenses, the slope sprawled and blocked the burned-out logs, due to which
their remains were relatively well preserved. Apparently, from the side of the steeper slope, a
wooden defensive wall stood on the very edge of the site and was not strengthened by a loose
clay slope (it was replaced by the natural slope of the cape). Therefore, the remains of the
wall are not preserved here. An additionally fortified line was reinforced with hollows (low
picket fence), which was arranged in the middle of a wide slope. This type of fortified line
was also investigated in other ancient settlement-community centers.”
There are eighteen such fortified hillforts or tribal centers on the territory of Carpathian
Ukraine, lands that belonged to the Dulebes. Note that not all the territories of the Slavs of
the 7th century were examinated with such care, so we’ll have to address this matter
retrospectively. Without entirely excluding external threats, the emergence of fortified towns
can only be explained by the onset of formation of more demanding and politically advanced
relations between kindred tribes and the struggle for power in tribal unions. At the beginning
of the VII century, fortifications appeared on the territory of the Sukow-Dziedzice (Sclavene)
material culture, an example of which is the reinforcement of an early Slavic city with an area
of 5 hectares on the Slupyanka River, the left tributary of the Vistula. The fortification had a
small earthen rampart, with stones and a wooden wall, and was located on the borders of the
Avar Khanate (Alekseev S.V.). To the east, on the territory of the Kolochin material culture
(the heavily forested part of the Dnieper), there were a number of fortified settlements from
the 7th century: permanent ones ((Kolochin-1, Kiseli, Cherkasovo, Nikodimovo, Vezhki,
Bliznaki, Demidovka, Akatovo, Mogilev -Zmeevka) The fortifications were located on the
cape, consisted of fortifications with ramparts and ditches (sometimes not one), had several
defensive sites. As reinforcement for the ramparts, wood was used. Defensive walls were also
used along the edges and ridges. closed longhouses with a courtyard (A. Oblomsky).
At the beginning of the 7th century. Slavs, while moving from the east to the Oder basin, in an
alien, unknown environment, have built their hillforts as powerful defensive structures, which
were of great importance, especially in the process of migration to alien, hostile
environments. And yes, for the first Slavic colonists, the threat came from the east, as the
Tornovo hillfort (Spree River basin) perished, on the site of which new Slavic colonists
erected new fortifications: a powerful annular shaft 10-14 m high, a ditch 5-8 m wide,
structures from vertical pillars and log houses. Sorbians (Serbs) who’ve migrated to this area,
a Sclavene tribal group, at the beginning of 7th century have built powerful fortresses
between the Elbe and Saale rivers: the structure was a dry masonry fortification with wooden
structures on top. Serbs (Sorbians) have used the skills borrowed from the Romans during
their time in the Danubian region. At the same time, the city-center of the Racing Union was
built - Stargrad (now Oldenburg) and Veligrad (Mecklenburg). Features of its improvement
of defences are the following: an area of 2,5 square kilometers, a shaft which is seven meters
tall, the base of the shaft was a skeleton made of wood, covered by a "carapace" of blocks
and planks. This design will soon become decisive in the construction of fortresses in these
territories by the Slavs. Obviously, the Vogastisburg fortress, from where the Wendish king
Samo resisted the Avars and the Franks, and which was besieged by the latter during the
reign of Dagobert I (603-639), was constructed in an approximately similar period. It was of
paramount importance that such a defensive location would be impregnable to the enemies of
the Wends. Further on, the attempt to take the fortress by starvation failed, because,
apparently, Samo’s Wends didn’t just fight defensively, but have actively led counterattacks,
which would rout their Frankish assailants, who would, in return, abandon their warcamp. In
summary, the fortifications of the early Slavs were distinctive, original and effective.”

On the matter of the origins of military stratification among Early Slavs:

Some researchers, based on folklore data, believe that “the Slavs played a significant role in
the early political organization of military fraternities” (S. Alekseev). And with this, perhaps
it would be difficult to argue. Secret male unions, primarily military alliances with nigh-lethal
initiations, ideas about werewolf warriors, wild animal warriors, are reflected in late Early
Slavic folklore. But in the absence of any surviving, primary sources on such structures
among the Slavs, it is necessary to use comparative historical analysis and folklore material.
The emergence of such paramilitary groups among South Slavs can only be associated with
the period of the invasion era, and later, periods of early statehood, depending on the group,
not earlier. The stratification of the Sclavenes, and earlier, the Anteans, was carried out
exclusively within the framework of a single tribal system, it was its presence and the
absence of the collapse of the clan community that did not allow the tribal early state
institutions to arise earlier: that is, the “people” preferred tribal protection to other systems.
Therefore, it is not entirely accurate to say that folklore regarding warrior fraternities
originates precisely in the 6th and 7th centuries, given the reports of "werewolf princes"
among the Rus' as late as the 10th century, which indicates that the aforementioned
stratification wasn't present in equal measure among all Early Slavs, and its intensity varied
from tribe to tribe. we have no data on similar processes in Slavic society during the period
under review, which means that there was no need to create these structures, the whole tribe
was an army and warrior fraternities hidden from those that weren’t part of it couldn’t have
remained incognito for long. We don’t have sufficient information about certain military
fraternities, independent of the community and opposing it, and the conclusions made on the
basis of folklore material aren’t sufficient to corroborate an affirmative conclusion. We can
only assume that within the framework of the tribal military organization of the Slavs and
only in conditions of constant warfare and migration period, that is, during real wars,
initiations took were made. Granted, the Romans used the term "Sclavene" not just to denote
Early South Slavs, but mobile, Slavic military colonists who've formed elite armies in Asia
Minor, which shows that the degree of military stratification among the Early Slavs was the
most accentuated among the Early South Slavs. There was an attempt to identify
fortifications, such as Zimno (a settlement on the Luga River, a tributary of the Zap. Buka,
Volyn, Ukraine) and Khotomel (the lower reaches of the Goryny River, Brest Region,
Belarus), as gathering centers for young warrior fraternities, before the onset of campaigns
down south. Khotomel was built on a hill, protected by an earthen rampart, and with a
sprawling moat to its west. In Khotomel, remains of lamellar armor were discovered in its
layers, while Zimno was located on the cape of a tall river bank, and was surrounded by a
wall of wooden risers and horizontal logs afixed in grooves, as well as a picket fence.
But in either case, family houses, craft workshops were discovered within the territory of the
dwellings, that is, they couldn’t be any special gathering centers for youth warrior-bands
(Kazan MM). As for the issues of totemism, it should be understood that totems were not
necessarily associated with “secret fraternities”, but most likely and primarily with tribes, but,
for example, along with information about animal totems, we have reliable information about
which trees were used by each group of Early Slavs, the Anteans would build theirs from
birch and, pine, while Serbs and other Sclavenes, from oak. (Zelenin D.K.).
As a contemporary of Heraclius’ wars and the siege of Constantinople in 626, the poet
George Pisidia, dubbed the Slavs “wolves”. While writing about the siege of the Roman
capital, he wrote: "... on the other hand, the Slavic wolves suddenly sallied out." And the
archbishop of Thessalonica called the Slavs who besieged his city, beasts. Perhaps this is just
an author’s freedom of expression, and perhaps we are talking about tribes that have a wolf
totem, but this information, it seems can only be interpreted figurately. For example, he
writes of a union of “wolf-lords”, we see an identical description provided us to by Michael
the Syrian, who states that the Slavs jave growled like lions to prey, it’s highly unlikely for
Slavs to have had lion totems, or tribes who’ve totemized lions.
Further on, there is a thesis that the ethnonym of the West Slavic tribe known as the Wilzi
stems from the Old Polabian word for wolves, and according to another thesis, from the Old
Russian word for giants, although there are no more tribal names in this region. However,
according to the “Annals of the Kingdom of the Franks”, the Wilts have called themselves as
the Welatabi or Veleti. The Slavic militia could have easily emitted a wolf’s howl, as well as
“other barbarian howls familiar to their prey”, which the inhabitants of Thessalonica besieged
by the Slavs spoke of. It’s also worth nothing that the war-cry and hoot of the Cossacks
which they’ve emitted during their charges, and which would terrify and demoralize their
European counterparts, was described in the exact same manner as the warcries which were
recorded during the siege of Thessalonica. Maurice interprets the howling as form of
psychological warfare, and describes it this way: “If, however, they have to dare, on
occasion, to battle, they’ll scream in toe and step forward a little, and if their enemies
succumb to their howling, they’ll swiftly attack, and if not, they’ll stop screaming and, not
trying to test their enemies in hand-to-hand prowess, retreat to nearby forests, where they’ll
have a great advantage, because they’re well versed in fighting in gorges.”
As for who ventured into forays and actively sought combat, at least during the migration, we
have the example of bands of young warriors who’ve organized themselves into bands, and
would partake in scouting campaigns: “In addition, the most trained young men, using the
right moment, secretly attacked the stratiots, as a result of which those who make a campaign
against them are not able to harm their opponents.”

The participation of young men who’ve fought as skirmishers in the war was a natural
occurence. Slavs don’t have any form of military democracy which led to aggressive
stratification between warriors and agriculturalists, and apparently, young people didn’t have
to seek permission from their elders, this is a structure of clear vertical subordination, where
each member has a certain function, both in war and peace. This wasn’t a system controlled
by economic relations, but by kinship. Slavic society of this period (VI-VIII centuries) is
rather rich in the fruits of its labor than in war. “They have a wide variety of livestock and
cereals,” writes Maurice.
Tribal militia:
Sources tell us about the existence of a popular assembly, councils of elders or simply elders,
and above them, military leaders and princes. In such a society, war isn’t stratified, and is an
integral, almost religious part of the life of Slavs. Maurice indicates that one should not trust
the traitors of the Slavs, even if they are Romans, who were once captured by them, " for they
changed over time, forgetting about their own and giving preference to the favor of the
enemies."
B.D. Grekov wrote, recognizing the strength of the tribal militia: “In the 6th century, we find
Sclavenes and Anteans in a state of “military democracy”. In the same century, the Slavs and
Anteans made more successes in military affairs ... "

At the heart of the Slavic military organization lies the tribal militia made of all capable men.
However, in scientific literature there is an opinion that the origins of these bands of warriors
may have existed even before formation of the Anteans, but these were not professional
warrior-bands (V. Sedov). The entire people of the White Croats howled like wolves in
Dalmatia as they’ve defeated the Avars and conquered their lands, led by the family of five
eponymous brothers. As the Sclavene tribes led by Hatson (Khotimir or Khotun) made their
push southward, where all the militia first must liberate the rural territories, empty the islands
and the coast of valuables, and then occupy the territories of Macedonia and Greece. The
very terms that are associated the most with the army are the howls, that of the warrior of the
militia, that of the voivode - the one who leads the militia to war, and the howls of the boyar
– a word that derived from the proto-Slavic word “boy”, which means battle, and the howl of
the army - this is a clash of howls and the organization of howling communes. One should
not look for Turkic origins of title of “boyar”, or of the Bulgarian “bolya” is merely a
consonant with the word “boyar”, but are of native Slavic origin. Otherwise, it would be
impossible to pintpoint the origin of this title in the territory of Rus’, long before the
borrowing of Bulgaria’s Old Church Slavonic? Either way, one doesn’t inherit social and
military titles through the adoption of writing systems, and as we’ve concluded before, the
basis of the troops of the Early Slavs is the tribal militia.
What all battles in the Early Middle Ages, and among all peoples, have in common is that the
role of the commander was reduced to him setting an example in battle with his own deeds.
The partial exception to this rule were the Roman armies, although even Roman commanders
stood among their soldiers, and have fought in toe with them. Based on Early Slavic
strategies of Romans, which relied of ambushes, skirmishes and the constant use of
fortifications and shelters, reliance on a supreme commander wasn’t prioritized, for every
tribed had lived and fought independently. We can draw a parallel between the Early Slavs
and the Germanic tribes who were at a similar state of development during the tenure of
Julius Caesar: "The more a well-known community devastates neighboring lands and the
wider the desert surrounding it, the more glory for it."- [Notes on the Gallic War. VI .23.]
Such structure lies at the very basis of a Slavic army, not only in the 6th century but later as
well. Even after the transition to early states, little has changed in the management of the
army instead or together with the tribal leaders: princes, voivodes, boyars and knyazes.
during the siege of Thessalonica at the beginning of the 7th century. the Slavs fought: “...
having with them on land their tribes along with their property; they intended to settle them in
the city after [its] capture.”
The tribes who besieged the city, led by Hatson, - that is, the the whole people, from small to
large. Incidentally, this tribal militia possessed great skilled at sea voyages and the building
of siege weapons. Compared yet again to ancient Germanic tribes, we should quote Tacitus,
who had emphasized the key motivation of these soldiers: “... but most of all, they are
encouraged by courage that the horse detachments and combat wedges are not drawn up
according to the whims of circumstances and are not random masses, but consist of family
ties and consanguinity; moreover, their loved ones are near them, so that they can hear the
cries of women and the crying of infants, and each of these witnesses is the most sacred thing
that he has, and their praise is more dear than any other. ”- [Tacit. G. 46.]
Thus, for the 6th -8th centuries, we conclude that the foundation of the army of the Early Slavs
was an army-tribe, or the tribe itself. It was this structure that was the foundation during war.
Primary sources don’t make any mention of a leader’s honor guard, but they must’ve existed,
for it was paramount for leaders to surround themselves with the best warriors their tribe had
to offer.”

On the matter of vital rebuttals of the premise of Western European rationalization for their
proposed etymology for the word “slave”:
Firstly, Slavs are the only reason why the nomadic, Turko-Mongol world was defeated,
subdued, and, barring Turkey and Mongolia, thoroughly Russified. Secondly, White Croats
and White Serbs – two eponymous South Slavic tribes, have entered the annals of history by
exterminating every Avar they'd find on their migratory warpath, and south of the Danube,
based on agreements made with emperor Heraclius, who then ennobled them as his vassals.
Matter of fact, Croats took it even further, and would "partially murder them, and partially
enslave them", Avars were sold into slavery by Croats from the isle of Hvar. Thirdly, the
term "Ghilman" denotes primarily Turkic slaves who've served as slave-soldiers to Muslim
empires that spanned across the largest landmass in the world, and for nearly a millennium to
boot, and this landmass' chief reservoir of slaves was Central Asia, the home of the Turkic
peoples, not Eastern Europe. Fourthly, Early Slavs would be enslaved for the first time in the
Early Middle Ages, specifically between the 9th and 11th century, and only on the Elbe,
Eastern Adriatic, and Volga routes, and primarily by other, more powerful Slavic tribes (like
the Narentines), while the Varangians, Venetians, and the Radanite Jews were merely the
intermediaries who've transported and further sold the flesh. Fifthly, arguing that the
Medieval Greek name for the Early South Slavs is the root for the word "slave", and then
rationalizing it with ambiguous absolutes like "Romans seizing many Slavs as slaves", is
erroneous for the following reasons:
a) The chief source of slaves in the 6th and 7th centuries weren't Slavs, but Christians, who
were enslaved by Slavs, they were even dubbed as "Krscenik" by their enslavers.
b) The number of Christians the Slavs have enslaved vastly outnumbers even the highest
estimates for the enslavement of Slavs on the Elbe and Volga routes:
1. Procopius of Caesarea: "(...) In Illyria and Thracia, from the Ionian Gulf to Byzantine
surrounding cities, where Hellas and Chersonese regions are situated, (...) the Sclavenes and
the Antes, penetrating practically every year since Justinian administering the Roman
Empire, were inflicting irreversible damage to their inhabitants. In each invasion, I estimate
200,000 Romans were either took as prisoners or killed (...)".
2. Procopius of Caesarea: "(...) In more or less the same time [549 - 550] a Slavic army (...)
gathered itself together and after crossing without encountering any resistance from anyone
the river Ister [Danube], and later with similar ease the river Heuros, it divided itself for two
parts. (...) Commanders of Roman garrisons in Illyria and Thrace fought against both those
parts and even though they had already separated from each other, the Romans suffered -
contrary to their expectations - a defeat, and some of them fell dead on the spot, while others
found salvation in escaping. (...) After all, garrisons had suffered such defeats at the hands of
either one or the other one of barbarian armies, one of the enemy bands fought against troops
of Asbadus. He was a member of Emperor Justinian's personal guard (...) and he led a
numerous and elite force of cavalry, which had been garrisoned for a long time inside the
Thracian stronghold of Tdzurulon. But also, they were forced to retreat by the Slavs and most
of them, shamefully escaping, got slaughtered, while Asbadus himself was captured and
temporarily left alive, but soon after that the Slavs skinned him alive and threw him into a
burning campfire. After that, the Slavs were plundering all neighboring Thracian and Illyrian
lands without any obstacles and both of their two units captured many strongholds. (...) And
those who had defeated Asbadus, later plundered, in turn, everything up to the sea coast, and
captured in an assault the coastal city of Toperus (...) And they slaughtered 25,000 men,
plundered everything, and enslaved all the children and all the women. (...)" Give or take, the
number of non-Slavs enslaved by the invading Slavs in the 67th and 7th centuries alone is
certainly above a million.
c) Magister militum, and later, emperor Maurice states the following about the Slavs in his
work "Strategikon", 11, 4:
"The Sclavenes and the Antes live in the same way and have the same customs. They are
both independent, absolutely refusing to be enslaved or ruled by foreigners, least of all in
their own land. They are populous and hardy, bearing readily heat, cold, rain, nakedness, and
scarcity of provisions.
d) Slavs conquered and colonized all of Southeastern Europe and Greece, barring some
Dalmatian cities and Thessalonica, and the ERE would retake the Peloponessus from the
Slavs only a few centuries later.
e) In Medieval Greek, the term "Sclavene" is used to denote Early South Slavs, and Slavic
military colonists, who've formed elite Roman armies in Asia Minor, led by men like
Neboulos and Thomas the Slav. Even the Slavs who were forcefully relocated to Asia Minor
during Heraclius' reign were never slaves, but military colonists.
f) The word for “slave” in Medieval Greek comes from the Greek verb skyleúo - meaning “to
get spoils of war”, the first-person singular of which looks like skyláo. This etymology, in
particular, is established thanks to the following sources: F. Kluge, Etymologisches
Wörterbuch der Deutschen Sprache. 2002, siehe Sklave. (Etymological Dictionary of the
German Language, 2002, article "Sklave"), look at the word Sklave: “... zu gr. skyleuein,
skylan, V. zu gr. Skylon ", Köbler, Gerhard, Deutsches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 1995.
(Etymological Dictionary of the German language by G. Gebler, 1995). Section "Slaven".
Thus, it turns out that the Greek word "sklav", "slave" - comes from the Greek word, the
original meaning of which was "seized in war". And, as you can see, with this etymology, in
its origin there is no connection with the ethnonym of the Slavs. In fact, it turns out that the
"Slavs" and all these numerous Western European "sklavas" are only homonyms. There are
innumerable examples of such consonant coincidences (both within the same languages, and
between words from different languages). This is a fairly common occurrence, especially
among Indo-European languages.
g) The only way for the "Slav-slave" etymology to make sense is if it was rationalized with
the phenomenon of the "harvesting of the steppe", where hundreds of thousands of Eastern
European, Caucasian, and Central European people were enslaved for sale in the Crimean
slave markets, but not even that explanation would make it convincing, or accurate because
the Tatar (and Turkic in general) word for "slave" isn't derived of the ethnonym of the Slavs.
h) Southern Scandinavia was raided for slaves by the Pomeranian and other seafaring Slavs
for centuries, and with such intensity that it was entirely depopulated, and during the Raid of
Konungahella, the city itself was destroyed, its army annihilated, and its inhabitants partially
killed and partially enslaved, during the Wendish Crusade no less, which was in no small part
launched as a consequence of Slavic piracy which terrorized the entirety of coastal
Scandinavia. Wales, Scotland, and Irish hinterlands were Western Europe's main reservoirs
of slaves in the Middle Ages. Matter of fact, Dublin was the largest slave market in Western
Europe. On top of that, more than a million Western Europeans (Robert Davies) were
enslaved by the Barbary Pirates between the 16th and 19th centuries, and yet, for some
reason, even with all these historical examples of slavery in Western Europe's history,
Western academia has to look for roots for the word "slave" in the very ethnonym of the
Slavs, a people who've aggressively expanded over the largest landmass in the world, at the
expense of non-Slavs.
On the matter of the deliberateness of Slavic colonization southward, and their subsequent,
but finite integration into Roman mainstream, and the return of Roman rule to the Greek
peninsula:

“The Slavs have chosen key regions to colonize rather than simply 'wandering' or diffusing
down. Aegean parts of Macedonia, around Thessaliniki, Epirus and Thessaly were chosen.
Northern Macedonia might have been settled some 1-2 centuries later, as some fell back
north in light of Rome’s reconquest or diplomatic negotiations. But it is clear that they were
at least autonomous semi-autonomous in the centuries following the Slavic invasion of the 6th
and 7th centuries. Byzantine seals of Slavic rulers (archontes) have been found throughout
Greece, and during the course of the 8th century, imperial authority would slowly, but surely
return to the interior. The imposition of Byzantine rule over the Sklaviniae has largely been a
process of Christianization and accommodating Slavic chieftains into the Imperial fold, as
literary, epigraphic and sigillographic evidence testify to Slavic archontes participating in
Imperial affairs. The local Slavic colonists were Christianized and thus subjected to
Byzantine authority, often in autonomous districts under their own archontes, this method of
reintegration of lost Roman territories was the only way of permanently integrating the
conquering Slavs and the lands they’ve conquered from Rome (Nesbitt & Oikonomides 1994,
pp. 22–24, Koder & Hild 1976, pp. 57–58.). This process was interrupted, but not halted, by
another wave of Slavic colonization in c. 746/7 from Bulgaria, imperial possessions appear
not to have been greatly affected, and the fact that in 766, Emperor Constantine V (r. 741–
775) was able to call upon 500 artisans from "Hellas and the islands" to Constantinople
suggests a great degree of safety between the province and the imperial centre.The anti-Slavic
campaign of the minister Staurakios in 783 restored and extended imperial control once
again, especially in the Peloponnese and northern Greece. In Central Greece and Thessaly,
the campaign seems to have been primarily a show of force to strengthen imperial rule and
subdue the new colonists, while in the Peloponnese it involved genuine warfare against the
Slavs. Although the local Slavs of the Peloponnese were not fully subdued at this time, the
gradual strengthening of imperial authority eventually led to the splitting off of the
Peloponnese to form a separate theme around or soon after the year 800. The Romans would
retake all of Greece from the Slavs only during the reign of Basil II, and even then, Roman
authority over the Peloponenese would be nominal at best.”

On the futility of the premise of Avars playing the leading role in the invasion of the Slavs:

“The premise is that the first wave of Slavic colonists moved under the military and political
rule of the Avars in 582. The premise is based entirely on the anonymous text of a short
prayer, written on a roof-tile during the siege of Sirmium which illustrates the desperate
situation in the city which had been the capital of the Praetorian prefecture of Illyricum from
318 until its occupation by the Huns in 441 and again from 567 onwards. The prayer reads:
“Oh Lord, help the town and halt the Avar and protect the Romania and the scribe. Amen”.
This short sgraffito writen in vernacular is used by modern historians as proof of the
allegedly evident leading role of the Avars during the first phase of the Slavic invasion,
which must have been so, because the contemporary eyewitness mentions only them, even if
in reality they were merely invading along, not ahead of the Slavs. The leading explanation
for the latter’s premised subordination to the Avars is that their political structure, which
Procopius described as a “military democracy”, impeded coordinated military resistance
against the enemy, but that is, aside from being historically innacurate, also contradictory to
all primary sources that do, in fact, mention the names of Slavic rulers, whether they’re
hereditary kings of the Anteans, like Mezamir and Muzhok, or high chieftains of the
Sclavenes like Dauritas/Dervan (trans. Daurentius/Darvantius), to whom all other chieftains
are subordinate, kings like Perbundos who ruled over several hundred thousand Sclavenes
and besieged Thessalonica, and chieftains like Radogost, who’ve led more than a hundred
thousand men into invasions and raids deep into Roman territory, which doesn’t just refute
the premise of Slavs not having rulers, but also reveals that the Slavs had a developed, and
militarized hierarchy where supreme leaders reigned over the whole body of the Slavs, and to
whom weaker, other rulers were subordinate, and that their military endeavors and migrations
were organized and planned, not aimless and random. In reality, we only have written proof
of Slavs (Pannonian Wends) along the upper Danube, in the vicinity of the Avar homeland of
Pannonia, being subdued by the Avars, while the Slavs (Sclavenes and Antes) on the lower
Danube were sovereign and independent, and we find the confirmation of that in the work of
Menander Protector and Maurice’s Strategikon, respectively:

a) Who is, then, the man which basks in sunlight that threatens to conquer our strength? We
are used to ruling over others, not to being ruled over - of that we are certain for as long as
wars are waged and swords are forged". Since the Slavs acted so haughtily, the Avars were
no different in boasting. Then the scolds and insults resulted from that, being that the
barbarians are of a narrow and proud mind, and the fight broke out. The Slavs, unable to
control the anger, killed the envoys, as Bayan found out from another source. Because of that
Bayan has long since raised accusations against the Slavs, fueling a secret hatred against
them, mad for they refused him, and angry that from them he received an unforgivable insult,
in the same time he thought he would do a favor to Caesar and likewise *find a rich land to
plunder, for far too long has the land of Romans been plundered by Slavs, and theirs (Slavic)
- never by any of other peoples*."

b) "...being freedom-loving, they are in no way inclined to become slaves or to obey,

especially in their own land." (Strategikon of Maurice, ed. prep. V. V. Kuchma. SPb., 2004,
p. 189)”. Further on, both to Maurice and Priscus, the Slavs, not the Avars, were the primary
threats on the Northern Limes:

c) Priscus' advance to Dorostolon on the lower Danube confirms that he was concerned to
combat the Slavs (cf. vi. 6. 2, 14), not the Avars, whose homeland was in Pannonia on the
upper Danube.
D) Then, after the termination of this speech, although the force was distressed by the
address, Priscus granted pardon to boldness and forgiveness to barbarian words. Therefore,
he offered no rebuttal to rashness, but declared that he was undertaking a war against the
Sclavenes, for the agreement and truce with the Avars had not in fact concluded the Getic
war as well (i.e., the Slav war). Just from the following paragraphs, we see that the Early
Slavs who’ve invaded Roman territories weren’t just independent, sovereign entities and
treated as such by Rome, but also one of the greatest, if not the greatest of Rome’s threats on
the northern borders. While it is true that some groups of Slavs were subdued by the Avars,
we should strive to differentiate them from the majority of Slavs who weren’t, and that can
only be accomplished by adhering to the well recorded, tripartite division of Early Slavs on
the Wends, Sclavenes and the Antes, and primary sources (like Fredegar’s Chronicle and the
Tale of the Bygone Years) have recorded that merely the Pannonian Wends and a branch of
Dulebes were subdued by the Avars, not the Sclavenes and the rest of the Antes. Further on,
In the aftermath of the Avar-Roman invasion of Daurentius’ realm, only a number of
Sclavene tribes would ally themselves with the Avars, and would never be subdued by them.
In summary, the premise of Avar domination over the Slavs who’ve invaded and colonized
Roman territory is strictly untrue since the Slavs on the lower Danube (Sclavenes and Antes)
were not subdued by the Avars (Michael and Mary Whitby, The History of Theophylact
Simocatta, cf. vi. 6. 14 with n.).”

On the summary of the inherent, layered and unapologetically Slavophobic module of

interpretation of Early Slavic history of Western Academia:

“To Western historians, Slavic people suddenly emerge in historical records in the 6th
century. The question is - why, and how. Naturally, they fill the void with possibilities that
only serve to legitimize their preconceived assertions and dogma against the Slavs. One of
the leading ideas in that regard is that the Slavs were a large confederation of various peoples
who were fighting the Avars and other threats from the Steppes, led by a coalition of
(formerly) Iranian-speaking warriors, who were at this time the most elite warriors in Eurasia.
So, this theory believed that the remnants of what remained of these peoples fighting the
mythologized threats from the Steppes were ethnically unrelated and had Sarmatian/Iranian
nobility that had asserted itself over the masses of ambiguous origin. In reality, the very
archaeological cultures of the White Serbs and White Croats are quintessentially Slavic, and
without any discernable Sarmatian influences (Sukow-Dziedzice and Prague-Korchak), and
even the leading theories in regards to the origin of their ethnonyms argue for a Slavic, not
Iranian origin, yet the dogma still persists. Even from the get-go, the aforementioned theory
outright deconstructs and dehumanizes the Slavs as masses with no identity, united only by
an imminent threat of danger, and their inability to self-organize, therefore inherently
subservient to, and reliant on the mystified “other” for leadership. This and similar theories of
course don’t hold, and are primarily conditioned by Western Academia’s, and paradoxically,
by prejudice within Slavic scholarship itself where one, for example, finds a kind of self-
hatred among a number of Slavic historians, and particularly among the Polish historians who
are notoriously prejudiced and dismissive of South Slavs, and intend to tie themselves up in
knots trying to discover that there is no genetic or any other connection between them and
other Slavs, including the Russians, the only ones they seem to consider as exceptions to that
rule are the Ukrainians and the Belarusians, and most definitely because of Poland’s
geopolitical aspirations and history of colonization of the homelands of the aforementioned.
The other aspect of the anti-Slavic prejudice in scholarship, most of which stems from the 60s
and 70s, and primarily from Francis Dvornik, who was Czech/Moravian, and has harbored a
kind of French, pathologically prejudiced view toward Paganism and the “East” (of which
Slavs are part of), is the dogma that everything that grazed the Mediterranean was civilized
and advanced, and everything beyond the borders of the Roman Empire and world was
savage and pagan. So, the way they thought and postulated, given the records of the Croatian
and Serbian rulers being the earliest recorded among individual Slavic peoples, clearly this
must have not been the Slavs themselves that self-organized but there had to be an external
group, especially for them, to defeat the Avars and other enemies to their peoples, and be the
eponymous warriors, and the “warrior elite”, because the "atavists" of the East had no
capacity to do that themselves. And with this, at the same time the French academy was
engaged with Foucault, Derrida and Alain Badieu, Lacan and others. To summarize, the
characteristics of a people, no matter their generosity or openness of spirit toward nations that
are the most different from themselves, despite their humanitarian, intellectual and spiritual
awards hanging on their wall, that regardless of where and how in Europe, Slavophobia is
still alive and well in the very foundations of a Europe.”

On the matter of the most immediate revisionism in regards to the Eastern Front:

“The Germans killed up to 40 million Slavs in just 5 years, this is a tremendous number that
cannot be rationalized by fallacies like "retaliation for partisan activity", this was a clear-cut
example of attempted extermination, especially considering the fact it was followed up by
nigh-total devastation of material property in Eastern and Southeastern Europe, the
kidnapping of tens of thousands of Polish and Czech children "fit for Germanization", the
physical extermination of Yugoslav and Polish intelligentsia at the hands of the German army
and collaborator entities, and the rapes of up to 10 million women in the territories of the
Soviet Union alone. On top of that, the German army carried out immeasurable amounts of
natural resources, items of value, and hundreds of tonnes of industrial equipment just from
Poland alone, they'd carry out a comparable amount from Czechoslovakia (which was the
most industrialized part of A-H), the Soviet Union and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia as well,
which was the most rapidly industrializing state in Southeastern Europe in the interwar
period. Even to this day, stolen Polish art is held at display in German museums and private
collections with pathological impudence, and Germany refused all demands made by the
Polish government to return what was stolen.
The argument of Slavs being present in the German army being proof of the NS not being
hostile to Slavs is meaningless as well because the German army was short on men, and had
to make do with the substantial numbers of Slavs, and to justify that to the German public,
they'd assign alternate, pseudo-historical identities to the Slavs of the Axis. Croats suddenly
became Gotho-Persians, Bosnian Muslims became Goths, the Bulgarians became Turkic, the
Slovaks long-lost German colonists, and the Ukrainians and Vlasov's Russians became
Varangians. Even then, the Slavic divisions were primarily used as cannon-fodder, and
engagements where high losses were almost a certainty. Even in Ukraine, which initially
welcomed the German army as liberators, the Germans began a campaign of extermination of
Ukrainians, which resulted in Ukrainians deserting the SS divisions in great numbers, and
volunteers for the Soviet army rising exponentially in number. Slavs who identify with the
NS are simply put, delusional and pathologically self-loathing. Seeking affirmation and
recognition from the same Germanic and Latin peoples, whom the Slavs have defeated in
both World Wars is beyond defeatist, it is ethnomasochistic and shameful.
Further on, the Germans specifically favored Slavs who've either had no sovereign history
and would be required to exist underneath a German aegis, like the Slovaks and the
Ukrainians, or Slavs whose geopolitical existence, and even supremacy relied entirely on
being subsidiaries of Germanic geopolitical supremacy in their respective regions, like the
Croats, while Slavs who were either rivals and threats to Germanic states and their interests,
or their superiors in the past and present were strategically deemed as "subhuman", i.e the
Polish, the Russians, and the Serbs, quintessentially, the dominant West, East and South
Slavic nations. As ever, ideology serves as a foundation for geopolitical necessities.”

On the matter of the validity of Bulgaria’s status as Serbia’s vassal in the 14th century:

“Bulgaria was definitely a vassal of Serbia during the reign of Stefan Dušan and his son,
verified by the following sources:
1. René Ristelhueber (1971). "A History of the Balkan Peoples" Ardent Media "After
besieging the emperor at Salonica in 1340, he imposed a treaty assuring Serbia sovereignty
over regions extending from the Danube to the Gulf of Corinth, from the Adriatic Sea to the
Maritsa River, and including all of Bulgaria up to the environs of Adrianople. Bulgaria's tsar,
whose sister Dušan had later married, became his vassal."
2. Kidd, (6th August 2013). "Churches Of Eastern Christendom" Taylor & Francis. pp. 228–.
"Bulgaria had never recovered since its defeat by the Serbs at the Battle of Velbazhd, the
Second Bulgarian Empire being a Serbian vassal state between 1331 and 1365"
3. Dušan's title used in Dušan's code is: "Законик пречасног и Христољубивог цара
Стефана Македонског, господара на Српски, Бугарски, Угро-Влашки, Далматински,
Арбанашки и други предели на земљи".
4. Bulgarian coat of arms appears on the Serbian coat of arms during the reign of both Stefan
Dušan and Stefan Uroš V. Examples: Berlin armorial, Fojnica armorial, Modenna armorial,
Korenić-Neorić armorial, Belgrade armorial, Skorojević armorial and the Split manuscript.
5. Tarnovo’s patriarch was present during the Council of Skopje (1349) and the Council of
Serres (1354), if he was the patriarch of an independent country, why was he involved in the
internal politics of another sovereign country? At the time of both councils, Serbia already
had its own patriarch, (since 1345. to be precise), so it wasn't under the jurisdiction of
Tarnovo’s patriarch.
6. In 1346, Dušan was crowned by both the Serbian and the Bulgarian patriarch, with the
exact same title - "Emperor of the Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians and Albanians" (Царь Србљем,
Грком, Блгаром и Арбанасом) Source: Third installment of Vladan Đorđević’s “Tsar
Dusan”, Edition reprint, Publisher K. Stilos, page 135.”