Get Template Talk:History of Croatia essential facts below. View Videos or join the Template Talk:History of Croatia discussion. Add Template Talk:History of Croatia to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Template:History of Croatia is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.Croatiapopflock.com Resource: WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historypopflock.com Resource: WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Yeah, it'd be nice to have Origin of Croats and Migration of Croats in History of Croatia series, but the articles do not exist at the moment, so there's no sence in putting the red links to the Template. When the articles get written, then put them in the template. --Dijxtra 15:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
boxclass=infobox - the CSS class of table (default: infobox)
boxwidth=220px - the width of the box table (default: 205px)
marginleft=0.1em - the width of the margin outside the left edge of the box (default: 1.0em).
Other parameters might be needed for further use of the infobox in more articles. The above parameters are used when stacking along with other infoboxes. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to discuss this with you: the Kingdom SHS = Yugoslavia - its the same state, just renamed. Its Yugoslavia. I'd have to be a total idiot to even discuss this with you.
The NDH was a wartime creation formed by foreign powers on occupied Yugoslav territory. Yugoslavia as a state obviously never de jure capitulated (the army surrendered, not the state), and much of its territory was even de facto controlled by various Yugoslav guerrilla forces.
Was Croatia "not in Yugoslavia" during WWII? This is only true if one considers the Independent State of Croatia a legal entity and successor to Yugoslavia. Who considers the NDH a legal Croatian state? Fascists and right-wing neo-nazi Usta?e supporters. Who gives a damn about what they think? Noone, certainly not the Croatian government, and neither will I.
"Recent History" is actually worse than "Modern History". "Recent History" certainly includes "War of Independence" and "Republic of Croatia". This is another ridiculous debate I am about to go into. The only section heading that covers Croatia from 1918 to 1991 is "Croatia within Yugoslavia". Get over it, and curb your nationalist censorship of historic facts. The only reason you want to remove that heading is because you don't like the fact that Croatia was a part of Yugoslavia, OR, maybe you're trying to "add legitimacy" to the NDH? Typical censorship with the purpose to mislead. It is obvious to anyone that you have no idea how to phrase the section without mentioning Yugoslavia, and you're cooking-up weird and inaccurate phrases. I am not backing down on this. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 23:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
(2) Legitimacy. I am not going to debate with a person who is biased towards any form of Yugoslavia, not because Yugoslavia is something bad per se, but because this person (Mr. DIREKTOR) apply modern laws, the United Nations to a historical state. This is pure Yugoslav revisionism and fabrication.
(3) History has a time flow.
(4) Mr. DIREKTOR is not familiar with the terms: novija povijest, najnovija povijest. Modern History, Latest (Contemporary) History.
(5) The heading he is proposing is not neutral and bias because the Croatian Parliament never ratified the inclusion of the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.
What utter NONSENSE: Why exactly does "recent history" not include events that took place after 1991? Did you just invent a category? "Recent history = 1918-1991"? In your dreams. All you are doing is avoiding the term "Yugoslav" which you removed.
The Kingdom SHS is the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The two are one and the same. This is not something I am going to debate. It is public knowledge. Croatia was within Yugoslavia immediately after WWII, not after Alexander I's dictatorship.
The NDH is illegitimate in accordance to the pre-war Hague conventions - as a wartime creation. Yugoslavia was also never dissolved as a state during WWI (I suggest you read Creation of Yugoslavia). Even in our modern Croatia, the only person who would dare defend the "legitimacy" of the NDH is an ultranationalist Usta?e-supporter. Why? Because only they are so blinded by bias that they are capable of ignoring simple facts.
I stop reverting your rubbish to avoid an edit-war, being aware that you are too juvenile to do so. What happens? You get bored and think the matter is over. This is not over, must I make this "interesting" for you? Discuss. Or do you only discuss when there's an edit-war? --DIREKTOR(TALK) 21:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You do not discuss but drop little "bombs" like the third point. You omitt discussion about the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs in hopes that when someone comes along (an admin) that your statement, about the Kingdom of SHS being exactly the same as the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, would prevail. Croatia was not always in Yugoslavia and the Modern History is a good enough term to use.
In other history templates we do not have your approach of listing the federations to which one country was part of. Serbian history template lists the Principality of Serbia as part of its Modern History.
They even omitt the fact that the Principality was for the major part of its existence under the Ottoman Empire (independent from 1878 to 1882, when it became a kingdom).
You should also stop making original research claims of something "would have been declared illegitimate" if United Nations were arround.
I have asked you many times to list exactly where it is written that by the Hague conventions states formed during war are illegitimate (exact wording, paragraphs, years, pages -- please). Also you should know that ISC signed the Geneva Conventions on January 20, 1943.
Let me make it clear, your accusations are null and void when it comes to my person. I am not mislead by any ideology. On the other hand some users claim that they are Croatian, but write Slav on their user page and do that knowing that some nations consider Croats as Skjavi, Ribeli i razni drugi maladeti
If I just drop bombs you just repeat yourself and your ridiculous paranoid theories about my "schemes" over and over again. The comical part is that you must think yourself very "clever" whenever you uncover a "scheme" of mine that you imagine. Countless times all you talk about is my "plan". If I had an elaborate "plan", you sir would most likely not be able to comprehend it, least of all predict it. Therefore you should probably assume all your "ideas" on my intentions are blatantly wrong. At least, I hope you will do me the courtesy of sparing me from having to read gibberish every time I see your post. Rest assured that the Admins you keep addressing do not care about your "theories" anymore than my imagined "plans", and that you live in a fantasy world where people actually read what two conflicting persons think about each-other. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 23:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Now to business:
I repeat the crucial question again, as it has stupidly gone unanswered in your large posts full of rubbish descriptions of my imaginary "schemes": Why exactly does "recent history" or "modern history" not include events that took place after 1991? You quoted Template:History of Serbia, but that template uses "modern history" for the entire period up to the present, which is naturally the meaning of the terms "modern history" and "recent history". If you want to use that method, that would be sensible. The current section title is not.
The Kingdom SHS was renamed into "Kingdom of Yugoslavia". These are not two states. What we have here is mindless nitpicking on your part, as usual. popflock.com resource treats them as one state, see the articles on Yugoslavia and Kingdom of Yugoslavia. This is in accordance with all the sources listed to that effect in the article(s). You get me a source about the Kingdom SHS being seperate before you mangle this template by listing the same country twice. Hell, you get me any historian that properly states he considers them seperate and I will concede this point.
The ISC signed the Geneva conventions I did not know that LoL... what a joke that was, that's like Pol Pot joining the Red Cross. Anyway, the Geneva conventions do not interest me. Rather the Hague Conventions of 1907 of which Yugoslavia was a signatory and Germany a founding state (regardless of whether or not it was a member of the League of Nations). The annexation and destruction of a state like Yugoslavia in such a manner is an illegal act per contemporary international law. Thereby rendering any and all "states" formed by sheer force on its illegally occupied sovereign territory - illegal (non-existent). These documents state:
"The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war. Hague III, Art. 1." No such declaration of war preceded the invasion of Yugoslavia. Aggression and destruction of a sovereign state in such a manner is illegal by international law at the time.
Furthermore, if you just skim through Hague IV, you will find that nearly all of its Section III is blatantly violated by the formation of another state on the territory of an occupied hostile state (Yugoslavia). Occupied territory of one state remains the territory of that state and no other until the war ends.
(The reason I hadn't looked for the exact text earlier is because I know you will not change your position regardless of the overwhelming amount of evidence in your face.) --DIREKTOR(TALK) 23:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
(1) The term Modern History has different meanings in different Historiographies. Please stop the nonsense that we must write Croatia in Yugoslavia, you advocate this even if the inclusion of the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was never approved. This notion of not approved is also one of the viewpoints widely held in Croatia.
(2) Modern history for some nations includes only the 20th century, but for some nations it apparently includes the 19th century also, this prove that the heading is used variously. The term Contemporary obviously describe the most recent period of history.
(3) Have you never heard of the terms novija & najnovija (recent, and most recent) in context of History?
(4) I never mentioned the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes as something worthy of mentioning in this template. Stop suggesting otherwise. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was a known dictatorship under illegitimate king Alexander Karageorgevitch. I did not list the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.
(5) We do not know whether the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (from 1929-1941 called the Kingdom of Yugoslavia) signed the Hague Conventions of 1907 (let alone ratified). But we do know that His Royal Highness the Prince of Montenegro signed the Conventions as well as His Majesty the King of Servia. Did that help the Kingdom of Montenegro from being occupied and annexed by the Kingdom of Serbia? Montenegro was annexed on 13 November 1918, and the Conference of Ambassadors in Paris gave international recognition to the illegalact on 13 July 1922.
(6) A piece of paper is what made the dissolution (in some parts also destruction) of Yugoslavia illegal?
(7) The Kingdom of Yugoslavia signed the Tripartite Pact with the German Reich, Kingdom of Italy and other, Yugoslavia apparently allowed presence of Axis troops and never formally left the Pact.
(8) The Hague Conventions do not contain any sort of data which describes how states are formed, it is not the modern Helsinki Accords.
(9) Hague conventions also work only in some cases, For Free City of Danzig(did not apply) but for Austria it did apply. The United Nations is obligated under its Charter to protect former mandates of the League of Nations (failed to do so in the case of Danzig).
(10) Also the Hague Conventions relating to the law of war apply in terms only to wars in which all belligerents are States Parties to the Conventions (de jure regenda) There are many different Hague Conventions, like the Hague Conventions on Civil Procedure (for instance ISC in its relation to Switzerland respected the Hague Conventions on Civil Procedure, and vica versa)
(10a) Saxe-Coburg and Gotha' Bulgaria and Savoy' Italy were not States Parties of the Hague Conventions (1907), as well as the Kingdom of Albania under the House of Savoy (Albania was still a separate Kingdom). The Kingdom of Montenegro (re-est. in 1941. was completely legal, even if was under protection of the Kingdom of Italy + had not had a king) 
(11) Hague III (1907) Article 3 Paragraph 1 direct quote: "Article 1 of the present Convention shall take effect in case of war between two or more of the Contracting Powers."
(13) There is also Hague IV (1907) Article 8 which allows the denunciation of the the present Convention.
(14) United States of America for instance signed but not ratified the Geneva Conventions on humanitarian law.
(15) You need to discern emotions from the subject.
(16) EUREKA -- "The Partisans of Yugoslavia should be supported by supplies and equipment and also by commando operations." -- but more importantly the EUREKA decided that Yugoslavia would be re-created, re-constituted or what ever, and it was explicitly said that this re-constitution would happen after the WWII. This means that there were no Yugoslavia at that point. Also the Soviets did not acknowledge the Royal Government in Exile. Then when the other Allies started to support the Partisan movement (then still organized by federal lines) the Soviet Union changed its standing regarding the modes of cooperation between the Partisan movement and the Royal Government in Exile. This was definitely approved at the Argonaut Conference when the Allies decided illegaly that "citizens of the Soviet Union and of Yugoslavia were to be handed over to their respective countries, regardless of their consent."
Imbris, what is this? Concentrate on the three points of this discussion, each referring to the specific change in the article: write up a shorter answer. It is impossible to lead a discussion with each post being one page long, can you get that Half that stuff you wrote up there doesn't even have anything to do with the question at hand... --DIREKTOR(TALK) 21:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You do not know how to skim read?! Please stop patronising with talk of brevity or legibility. You know very well that your three topics are null and void. The Modern History is a good enough term + most exact, not because I say so - but because (1) historians acknowledge the division on Modern and Contemporary (novija & najnovija). (2a) Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes is not exactly the same as the Kingdom of Yugoslavia because the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was a un-Constitutional move of a dictator Alexander Karageorgevitch, he suspended the previous Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, installed martial law, reigned unlawfully, dissolved the Parliament, etc. But I do not claim that the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes should be included in the list. (2b) You deliberately construed the 2a because I noted and insist that the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was independent before December 1, 1918 and this independence continued de facto up to the first Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. (3) The talk about Hague Conventions of 1907 has nothing to do with this template, you forced it in. -- Imbris (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Skim read? LoL...
No, historians absolutely do not recognize the division of history into "Modern" and "Contemporary" the way you imagined it (in 1991). Stop repeating that nonsense. There's "Modern" history, and the "Postmodern" era. Modern history lats up to circa 1973, after which comes the Postmodern era. "Contemporary period" is such an incredible piece of made-up nonsense it really shows your desperation in avoiding the term "Yugoslav". Why do you believe, and what source can you use to verify your claim that the Modern period lasts up to 1991
Furthermore, your postulate that Croatian inclusion in Yugoslavia is somehow "illegal" because the Croatian parliament never "ratified" that is a joke, only quoted by the worst kind of right-wing ultranationalists. There was no Sabor at the time to ratify it! The Sabor was essentially a provincial parliament of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and naturally ceased to exist along with it. Ever heard of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs?
Technically, the King had every right to disband the parliament because of the shootings that took place (Radi? killed, etc..). You and I both know its a political move, but technically and legally he had every right to assume the powers that he did (the sneaky bstrd). You do not insist on the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes? Can we at least get that behind us?
Very well, just so you know: the occupation of Yugoslavia was from the start an illegal act. This was recognized by every single Allied state. Both Yugoslavia and Germany were "signatory powers" of the 1907 Hague Conventions - Germany violated them (as she did many times before). This point is then closed as well? --DIREKTOR(TALK) 09:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
(1) The Contemporary Croatia was not inserted by me, but I think it is perfectly suited for the period after the independence. I have added a note besides the Contemporary Croatia heading, that it could be called The Republic of Croatia instead.
(2) Technically, the Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes did not gain 2/3 of the members of parliament, the elections were rigged, the election law was not democratic, etc.
(3) Stop inserting your blatant POV into this discussion, it is not the topic. You insist on this discussion as a way of testing ground for your expedition in the article about Yugoslav partisans. Please stop. Did you read about EUREKA, you deliberately quote certain aspects of the Hague Conventions in a misleading way. Yugoslavia was re-constituted after the WWII with approval of all Allies. Up to 1943 the Allies had different views. States cannot be illegal; but some acts (documents), some actions, some symbols. Why we do not have anything written about the National Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Croatia, the Croatian antifacist partisan movement.
(4) We should have an article about Croatia in the WWII -- which would be placed in this template -- instead of the Independent State of Croatia and the Federal State of Croatia. This would provide that we re-name the heading Contemporary Croatia to Independent Croatia
(5) Stop the nonsense about what Modern History means in different Historiographies. Modern History can include everything up to this moment. The Contemporary History is part of Modern History but highligthed to show that Croatia gained independence which is of top importance in any History.
I ask you again: why should "Modern history" mean "1918 - 1991"? That's your definition I've never heard of before There are many definitions, some say "modern" refers to the period "1800 - present", others "18th century - 1973". Why in the world should this template use your own little definition (other than to avoid the term "Yugoslavia", of course...). This is beyond silly, you can forget about this introduction of your own arbitrary categories and ages deliberately designed to avoid the use of the word "Yugoslavia".
I am also not backing down on the usage of the "Yugoslav Front" redirect for the "World War II" entry. You can forget about this kind of POV. Too many Croats died fighting the occupation of their homes for me to allow this kind of blatant avoidance of the simple fact that Croatia was a part of Yugoslavia during World War II. This is not open for debate. The Yugoslav Front article directly refers to the fighting on Croatian soil during WWII, there is no reason to use the general article on World War II on a template about Croatia.
Another point is placing the almost-irrelevant 1939 entity of Banovina of Croatia above the Kingdom of Yugoslavia which was the entity Croatia was directly a part of for nearly 21 years. How does this reflect the flow of history? How is this "objective"? --DIREKTOR(TALK) 22:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Our most recent era -- Modern Times -- begins with the end of these revolutions in the 19th century, and includes the World Wars era (encompassing World War I and World War II) and the Cold War. The 'contemporary era' follows shortly afterward with the explosion of research and increase of knowledge known as the Information Age in the latter 20th century and 21st century.
Further Evidence on(1): Template:History of France has its First Republic (1792-1804) under the header of 19th century, Third Republic (1870-1940) under the same header of 19th century and its Fifth Republic (1958-present) in the 20th century. History is not Mathematics. This way we could list what you insist we not call the Modern History under the header of 20th Century. Template:History of Moldova is also oriented towards displayment of Moldovan history and not the history of some federations Moldova was part of. Template:History of Kosovocontains federal entities only in those cases where Kosovo did not have its own unit (mentions only the most recent names such as the Kingdom of Serbia (but not the Principality of Serbia) and also mentions the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (but not the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes).
(2a) There should be an article about the Croatia during World War II (not the current redirect). This template is about the History of Croatia and not about the History of Yugoslavia. Yugoslav Front cannot be a part of this template. This new article if written properly and without revisionism should be in the template, and not some Yugoslav Front.
(2b) Historiography is not Law. States are not formed nor destroyed. They are a fact during their existance. One can describe some states using different atributes; the very fact of their existance cannot be illegal, if no international law on the creation of states existed during the WWII. Now we have a different sittuation, and the international law on the creation of states and self-determination is still being written (namely in the case of the Republic of Kosovo -- and we know how you feel about that issue)
(3) This is a template used for the gathering of the timeline and the topics on History of Croatia and not on the History of Yugoslavia. The two are connected but the displayment of countries in which Croatia "participated" is proposterous and definitely not objective.
All your arguments are excuses so that you can have your way in spite of all sense and reason. Discussion with you is absolutely and utterly pointless, since you do not budge no matter the evidence, no matter the meditation. The comical display at Talk:Independent State of Croatia proves my point: not even if I had university publications explicitly supporting my view would you acknowledge that you are WRONG. What am I supposed to do on articles and templates where there is no way to support either way with sources? There's no chance of ending the discussion, unless I don't start banging my head against the wall at how much energy I've wasted writing all this - and give-up.
Your efforts have destroyed this template. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 09:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)