aj nek mi neko da dokaz odakle i otkada poticu muslimani u bosni ... turci nisu, jer su muslimani u bosni plavi ...

uvek je bilo: 2 struje zapadna - vatikan i istocna - konstatinopolj ...

ja mogu samo jedan zakljucak izvesti, a to je da su ustvari poreklom madjari i austrijanci ... koji su se tu nastanili iz poznatih razloga ..

HISTORIJA BOSNE

A Brief History of Bosnia-Herzegovina

Andras J. Riedlmayer

Harvard University,USA,1993.

19,741 sq. mi. / 51,130 sq. km (about the size of West Virginia; 1/4 larger than Switzerland). Picturesque mountain scenery (Bosnia's capital Sarajevo hosted the 1984 Winter Olympics), much of it covered by forests; some coal and minerals, no oil. Bosnia's traditional borders, established in the medieval period, are: the Sava River (in the N), the Drina River (E/SE), and the Dinaric Alps (in the W). Herzegovina ("the Duchy") is the historical name for the country's southwestern region (around the town of Mostar). Located in the heart of Europe (as the crow flies, Sarajevo is closer to Rome than Milan is).

Population

In 1991 Bosnia was home to 4,365,000 people (twice as many as live in West Virginia; 1/3 fewer than Switzerland); its largest city was Sarajevo (pop. 526,000). Much of Bosnia's population is urban and (until April 1992) was employed in manufacturing, mining, technology and service industries. It is (or was) a modern, industrialized European country with respectable educational and health-care statistics. Almost all (over 95%) of the people speak the same language (called Bosnian or Serbo-Croatian), and come of the same European racial stock, descended from Slavic tribes that settled in the area in the early Middle Ages.

The people of Bosnia are traditionally called Bosnians. For reasons having to do with recent history (and as much with 20th-century ideologies as with traditional religious allegiances), Bosnians whose ancestors were of the Catholic faith are now identified as Bosnian Croats (17%), while those of Eastern Orthodox background are now identified as Bosnian Serbs (31%). The largest group of the Bosnian population, however, are the Muslim Slavs (44% in the 1991 census), descendants of Christian Bosnians who accepted Islam some 500 years ago.

Until the late 19th century, people of all three faiths identified themselves simply as Bosnians. Most Bosnians today are in fact highly secularized, and about a third of all urban marriages in Bosnia in recent decades have been between partners from different religious/ethnic backgrounds.

While there were some villages in the countryside where one group or the other predominated, Bosnia's towns and cities have traditionally been the shared home of people from all ethnic and religious groups. The latter include Jews, who found a haven in the tolerant city of Sarajevo in 1492, following their expulsion from Spain. Unlike Jews in Venice and elsewhere in Europe, Sarajevo's Jews were not confined to a ghetto. The city's principal mosques, its synagogues and Christian churches are all located in close proximity to each other, a visible sign of the intermingled public and private lives of its ethnic and religious communities.

History

Medieval Bosnia (ca. 1200-1463)

Like the rest of the Mediterranean region, Bosnia was part of the Roman Empire during the first centuries of the Christian era. After the fall of Rome, the area of Bosnia was contested between Byzantium and Rome's successors in the West. By the 7th century AD, Bosnia was settled by Slavs, who formed a number of counties and duchies. The 9th century saw the establishment of two neighboring kingdoms: Serbia (southeast of Bosnia), and Croatia (in the west). In the 11th-12th centuries, Bosnia was governed by local nobles under the authority of the Kings of Hungary (the large kingdom to the north, which had also taken over neighboring Croatia).

Around 1200 A.D., Bosnia fought for and gained its independence. To retain it, the Bosnians had to fend off not only the Hungarians, but also their powerful neighbor to the east, the Kingdom of Serbia. The independent medieval Kingdom of Bosnia endured for more than 260 years (somewhat longer than the United States has thus far). Its population was entirely Christian, but in a tolerant environment unusual for the Middle Ages there was not one Christian church but three. While most Bosnians were Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy and a schismatic local Bosnian Church also had adherents. All three churches were organizationally weak, their clergy largely uneducated, and none could count on steady and exclusive state patronage (these factors later contributed to the decision by a large part of the Bosnian people to abandon Christianity for Islam).

In the 14th century, the Ottoman Turks (an Islamic state originating in Asia Minor) embarked upon their conquest of the Balkans. By 1389 Serbia had suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Turks (at the famous battle of Kosovo) and had been reduced to the status of an Ottoman vassal. Through skillful maneuvering between its more powerful neighbors, Bosnia managed to retain its independence until 1463, when it also succumbed to the Turks.

Bosnia's Ottoman Centuries (1463-1878)

The conquering Ottoman armies marched on towards Vienna, and in the century that followed, many Bosnians (for both spiritual and social reasons) dropped their allegiance to the weak and disorganized Christian churches and adopted the triumphant faith of the Islamic conquerors. The spread of Islam was aided by itinerant Muslim popular preachers, who taught a fairly broad-minded and inclusive form of Islam that allowed Bosnians to adapt their old traditions to the new faith. The Ottoman sultans and their local governors embellished Bosnia's towns and cities with splendid mosques and established pious endowments that supported schools, Islamic seminaries, libraries, orphanages, soup-kitchens and almshouses. Many Muslim Bosnians rose to join the ranks of the Ottoman ruling elite as soldiers, statesmen, Islamic jurists and scholars; not a few attained the highest posts in the Empire. Within Bosnia, a distinctive Bosnian Muslim culture took form, with its own architecture, literature, social customs and folklore.

For more than 400 years Bosnia retained a distinct identity as the Eyalet of Bosna, a key province of the Islamic Ottoman Empire. A native aristocracy of Bosnian Muslim notables ruled the province in all but name, ready to defend their autonomy by force of arms, if need be, against any efforts to curtail it. Thus Bosnia shared both in the Empire's days of prosperity and glory and in the decline that ensued in the 18th century. As the Ottoman Empire's borders began to recede, Muslim Slavs who had been driven out of the lost provinces found a refuge in Bosnia, reinforcing the already large Muslim element within its multi-ethnic population.

Bosnia's Ottoman centuries came to an abrupt end in 1878, when the Great Powers of Europe met in Berlin to decide what to do about the Ottoman Empire. Eyed hungrily by these same powers (as an object of colonial conquest), the Ottoman Empire by this time seemed ripe for the fall. Unable to pay its financial obligations, it was threatened both by internal civil disorder and by the aggressive designs of its neighbors. What saved the Ottoman Empire from disintegration for another forty years (until the end of World War I) was the inability of the Great Powers to agree on a division of the spoils. A compromise was reached at Berlin, according to which Ottoman finances were entrusted to an international commission composed of the creditors, while the Empire's borders were, for the moment, to be left largely intact. There were to be some exceptions: Bosnia-Herzegovina was to be administered by Austria-Hungary (which had felt left out in the race for colonies); the island of Cyprus was assigned to Britain (which insisted it needed it to protect the Suez Canal); and, after 500 years of Ottoman rule, Serbia, Montenegro, and Bulgaria were given full independence (at Russia's insistence).

Bosnia Enters the 20th Century (1878-1918)

The newly installed Austro-Hungarian administration in Bosnia was determined to turn it into a showcase "model colony." Railroads and industries were developed with state subsidies; new schools, public buildings, parks and other icons of modernity were to symbolize the benefits of the new regime. There was a building-boom in Sarajevo and little intellectual circles began to discuss up-to-date European ideologies in the coffeehouses. Among these new ideologies, alas, was nationalism, that bastard offspring of 19th-century Romanticism and social Darwinism.

The nationalist dream of a great South Slav state united under the leadership of Orthodox Serbia was eagerly promoted from across the border (by Serbian agents covertly financed by imperial Russia, the self-appointed "guardian of all Eastern Orthodox peoples"). The Muslim Slavs saw no place for themselves in this proposed new order and continued to advocate the old Bosnian ideal of a pluralist, multi-confessional society; for obvious reasons the latter was also the orientation favored by the Austro-Hungarian authorities. Some Bosnian Muslims emigrated to Turkey and other parts of the Ottoman Empire, fleeing Austrian military conscription and a politically uncertain future. Most stayed, however, taking advantage of the educational and economic opportunities brought in by the new rulers, and their community grew more modern and prosperous as it entered the 20th century. Serbian nationalists, meanwhile, were plotting to overthrow Austro-Hungarian rule not only in Bosnia, but also in the neighboring South Slavic lands of Croatia and Slovenia. The Austro-Hungarian government's decision to formally annex Bosnia-Herzegovina (in 1908-1909) added to the nationalists' sense of urgency.

In the summer of 1914, a Serb nationalist youth named Gavrilo Princip assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne during a state visit to Sarajevo. The ensuing World War killed millions throughout Europe. Among the casualties were many Bosnians drafted to fight in the Austro-Hungarian army (and some who fought for the Serbian army), but the city of Sarajevo itself and most of Bosnia somehow, miraculously, escaped becoming a battleground in this first World War.

Interwar Yugoslavia (1918-1941)

When the Great War ended in 1918 more than half of Serbia's military-age male population was dead, wounded or missing in battle, but the nationalists had realized their dream: Serbia's ruler was crowned King of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, of the newly-created greater South Slav state that before long was renamed Yugoslavia. As the original name indicates, there was to be no special provision made for people who considered themselves neither Serbs nor Croats, and in the interwar years Bosnia's Muslim Slavs were pressured to register themselves as one or the other. Insofar as the Muslims counted on the political scene, it was as a football between Serb and Croat nationalist ambitions.

In the 1920s and '30s, as the Yugoslav regime became increasingly dictatorial and centralist, even those non-Serbs who had initially welcomed its arrival had reason to resent it. Especially bitter were the Croats, who had enjoyed considerable autonomy under the Austro-Hungarian regime and thought they would be equal partners with the Serbs in the new state. A turning point came in 1928, when the popular Croat Peasant Party leader Stjepan Radich was shot to death on the floor of the Belgrade parliament by a Serbian radical deputy. In a royal coup the following year, the parliament was dissolved and the constitution suspended; internal borders were redrawn to efface historical territorial units (such as Croatia and Bosnia); the newly-formed provinces were placed under the rule of iron-fisted military governors sent from Belgrade. Some Croats succumbed to the lure of anti-Serb extremist organizations, including the fascist Ustasha movement, supported by Italy. When Yugoslavia's king was assassinated by an anti-Serb extremist during a state visit to France, a new crackdown followed. Unresolved social and economic issues, combined with the local effects of the global economic depression of the 1930s, also helped to gain adherents for extremist groups of the right and the left, including the small Yugoslav Communist Party.

The Second World War (1941-1945)

Hitler invaded Yugoslavia in 1941, the king fled abroad, and the country was parceled out between Nazi Germany's allies and local clients. The northernmost strip (Slovenia) was annexed to the Greater German Reich; most of the Adriatic coastline of Croatia was assigned to Fascist Italy; Macedonia in the south was given to Germany's ally Bulgaria. What remained was divided up between the Nazi puppet-state of Croatia (compensated for the losses on the coast by being granted all of Bosnia) and a German-appointed regime in Serbia, headed by a former royal Yugoslav general named Milan Nedich.

The fascist regime in occupied Croatia, under Ustasha leader Ante Pavelich, undertook to ethnically "cleanse" the areas it controlled by the murder of large numbers of Serbs, Gypsies, Jews, as well as Croat political opponents, sent to their deaths in camps such as Jasenovac, southeast of Zagreb. Many thousands of Serbs were forced to "become" Croats by signing loyalty oaths and converting to Roman Catholicism. Bosnian Muslims were considered as "Muslim Croats" in the Ustasha ideology, and for the time being they were largely spared in this round of killing. Although Bosnian Muslim religious and political leaders spoke out publicly against the regime's program of ethnic and religious persecution, some Muslims also joined in the slaughter as part of a short-lived all-Muslim SS division established in 1943 under German command.

Meanwhile in occupied Serbia a similar campaign was carried on under General Nedich, who operated concentration camps for Jews, non-Serbs, and his Serb political opponents on behalf of his German overlords. The first experiments in mass executions of camp inmates by poison gas were carried out in Serbia, which became the first Nazi satellite in occupied Europe to declare itself "Judenrein" ("cleansed" of Jews). Gen. Nedich's Serbian militia forces, which played a key role in this task, outnumbered both German security forces and resistance fighters within the wartime borders of Serbia.

Many Serbs who despised Gen. Nedich for his readyness to serve the Germans joined a Serbian nationalist resistance movement, popularly called the "Chetniks" and headed by another royal Yugoslav army officer, Col. Drazha Mihailovich. Though initially supplied by British airdrops, Mihailovich soon stopped fighting the Germans as it became clear that every resistance attack on a German soldier or unit would be followed by savage reprisals against the Serbian civilian population. Thereafter there was little anti-German guerrilla activity within Serbia proper, as the Chetniks turned their attention to "safer" targets more in line with their nationalist ideology, which envisioned an ethnically pure Greater Serbia.

"Cleansed" of all non-Serbs, Gypsies, Jews, and traitors to the cause, this pure Serbia of the future was to extend beyond Serbia's current borders to embrace all of Bosnia-Herzegovina and much of Croatia. In pursuit of this vision, Mihailovich's Chetniks launched their own "ethnic cleansing" campaign in Bosnia, aimed at "undoing" the work of the Ustasha by killing off Croats and Muslim Slavs in order to tilt the ethnic balance in favor of the Serbs. Bosnia became a killing ground, as bands of Serbian Chetniks, the Croatian Ustasha, local militias, German and Italian occupation troops and the Communist Partisans vied with each other in terrorizing various segments of the civilian population. (Half a century later, the Chetnik vision of a purified Greater Serbia has been resurrected by Serb nationalists; the main street in the sector of Sarajevo under the control of nationalist forces was recently renamed Drazha Mihailovich Street, in tribute to the memory of the Chetnik leader and his ideology.)

Meanwhile the Yugoslav Communists, led by Josip Broz Tito, had organized their own multi-ethnic resistance group, which took up the fight against the Nazis as well as against the Chetniks, General Nedich, the Ustasha, and against anyone else who did not support their call for total armed struggle. Tito's Partisans, who fought their bloodiest battles in the mountainous terrain of central Bosnia and coastal Croatia, did not care that their attacks would provoke the Germans into killing off whole villages in reprisal. They knew that an embittered populace would then have no choice but to join the Partisans if they wanted to revenge themselves on the hated occupiers. Any who hesitated to join would soon be convinced by other means, including equally brutal Partisan reprisals against collaborators and other "enemies of the people." In battling the Communist Partisans, the Chetniks were drawn into compromising alliances with local Italian and the German occupation forces, while Tito's guerrillas gained a reputation for effectiveness in tying down Axis troops. As a result, in early 1944 the Allies withdrew their support from the Chetniks and began to airdrop supplies to the Partisans.

The Cold War and Communist Yugoslavia (1945-1990)

Thanks both to their ruthless tactics and to a now continuous flow of Allied military aid, Tito's Communist Partisans emerged at the end of the war as the undisputed masters of Yugoslavia. They marked their victory with mass executions of tens of thousands of Croat and Slovene militiamen who had surrendered to them at the conclusion of hostilities. Tito awarded himself the title of Marshal and ruled Yugoslavia as a one-party dictatorship for 35 years until his death.

Because Tito broke with Stalin soon after the end of World War II, he became a beneficiary of the Cold War, receiving economic and military assistance as well as diplomatic backing from the West. While Tito was one of the founding members of the international non-aligned movement and remained a staunch proponent of his own brand of Communism, it was economic and military aid supplied by the West that enabled him to build the Yugoslav National Army (JNA) into the fourth largest military force in Europe. When rumors of Tito's impending death in the 1970s sparked fears of Soviet intervention, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger declared that the United States viewed Yugoslavia as vital to its national interest and would risk nuclear war in its defense.

In Tito's Communist Yugoslavia overt manifestations of nationalism were proscribed and severe limits were imposed on religion, since both were seen as rivals to the official ideology. The country was reconstituted along federal lines: Bosnia-Herzegovina, restored within her pre-1918 borders, became one of six constituent republics (the others were Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Slovenia). In the Tito era, for the first time since World War I, Bosnian Muslims received official recognition of their separate identity (i.e. they were no longer forced to declare themselves as Serbs or Croats). Bosnia and its people had suffered terribly during the war, but the city of Sarajevo had once again emerged physically unscathed; it became the center of a cultural and economic revival. Although development in Bosnia lagged behind the levels attained by the more prosperous republics, in the decades following the end of the war Bosnia was transformed from a largely agricultural backwater into a modern, industrialized society.

Public worship and religiously-based customs were discouraged or banned outright under Tito's rule (this affected Islam as severely as it did the Christian denominations), but there was fairly broad freedom of cultural expression, as long as it did not appear to pose a political threat. In the early 1970s there was an economic boom, fueled in large part by money borrowed from abroad, and much of the country enjoyed a period of unprecedented prosperity (the claim that Serbia did not get as much of a share of this prosperity as certain other republics later became a theme of the Serbian nationalists' politics of resentment).

All of this began to unravel after Tito's death in 1980. Yugoslavia was ruled for the next decade by a committee composed of the presidents of the six republics and two autonomous regions, with members taking turns as federal president. The economic boom had also come apart, the foreign loans that had financed the prosperity of the early 70s dried up, and rivalries among the republics ensued as they began to compete for pieces of an ever-shrinking federal pie. In theory, ethnic tensions had been overcome by socialist internationalism, but in practice national groups had long been played off against each other by the regime. While local Communist party leaders in each federal republic were given control of political affairs and patronage, ethnic Serbs were allowed to dominate the JNA officers' corps as well as key positions in state enterprises.

By the end of the 1980s, Communism as an ideology and state system was coming undone throughout the entire region. Nationalism was resurrected to fill the ideological void, as each of Yugoslavia's member republics sought to make its own way. The collapse of Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe and the end of the Cold War also heralded the disintegration of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia---a structure built by Tito but kept going in large part by his success in exploiting Cold-War rivalries. In the first multi-party elections, held in 1990, the Communist Party carried only Serbia and Montenegro; in all the other republics, parties calling for greater autonomy from Belgrade or outright independence won large majorities.

The Disintegration of Yugoslavia (1986-1992)

The dissolution of federal Yugoslavia was hastened by the rise to power of Slobodan Miloshevich as president of the Serbian Republic and his embrace of an extreme Serb nationalist agenda. That agenda calls for a solution of the "national question" by the creation of a Greater Serbia, uniting all Serbs in a single state; in 1986 it was endorsed by the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences. The following year, Miloshevich and his hard-line faction gained power within the Serbian League of Communists, in large part by playing the nationalist card---appealing to the Serbian sense of grievance at having been deprived of a leadership role in Tito's Yugoslavia and at being outstripped by some other republics economically. He demanded that the more prosperous republics (Slovenia and Croatia) take on a greater share of the costs of the federal budget and called upon them to defer to Serbian leadership. His denunciations of Croat and Slovene efforts to liberalize the economy and to privatize state enterprises struck a chord among workers anxious about rising unemployment and other uncertainties of life in the twilight of the Communist era. By the end of 1987, Miloshevich was speaking of scrapping the federal constitution and the collective presidency altogether, calling for a new, recentralized Yugoslavia, united under a single strong hand.

In 1989, seizing upon the patriotic fervor surrounding a historic anniversary, Miloshevich initiated a crackdown on Serbia's ethnic Albanians, who form the majority (90%) of the population in the country's southern autonomous province of Kosovo. Kosovo was the seat of a Serbian kingdom in the Middle Ages and the site of the famous battle, fought in 1389, that ended medieval Serbia's independence and began its centuries of subjection to the Islamic Ottoman Empire. In the romantic imagery of Serbian nationalism, Kosovo represents both Serbia's past greatness and its humiliation at the hands of Muslims.

The continued presence of a large and politically assertive Muslim Albanian population in Kosovo is perceived as an intolerable affront to this nationalist vision of Serbia. In 1990 Miloshevich issued decrees abolishing the autonomous status of all of the Serbian Republic's minority regions and severely curbing the educational and political rights of ethnic minorities. The autonomous regions' seats in the Yugoslav collective presidency were retained, however, and were packed with Miloshevich's own appointees. Non-Serbs throughout Yugoslavia watched these developments with growing unease, unwilling to become either tools or targets of his policies

By the summer of 1991 Slovenia, the most prosperous and Westernized republic, decided it had had enough of Miloshevich's attempts to seize control of the federal presidency. When Miloshevich tried to block the Croatian member of the collective presidency from taking his turn at the federal helm, the Slovenes issued an ultimatum. As the deadline passed without a response from Belgrade, the Slovene parliament declared for independence (in theory, the right of each republic to secede was guaranteed under Tito's federal constitution). In Belgrade the Serbs responded with outrage and the Yugoslav federal army (with a 70% Serb officer corps) was called upon to intervene to stop Slovenia from seceding.

The army was unprepared for such a mission and the Slovenes, using public relations as much as derring-do, managed to inflict a series of humiliations on their vastly more powerful adversary (including sending captured JNA conscripts home on trains headed for Belgrade, clad only in their underwear). Following a brief struggle, Slovenia achieved its independence and JNA troops were evacuated to bases in neighboring Croatia. Since there is no Serb minority within Slovenia, this humiliating turn of events did not as yet seriously impinge on the Serb nationalist dream of a Greater Serbia. The same was not true in the case of the other republics.

Croatia, which is home to a sizeable Serb minority population, declared its independence on the same day as Slovenia. Following a tense period of skirmishes and negotiations between the Croatian government, representatives of Serb nationalist parties within Croatia and the Serbian-dominated federal authorities, talks broke down just as the conflict in Slovenia next door was coming to an end. The Yugoslav army launched a full-scale offensive against Croatia from its bases in Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, in coordination with militias that had been formed by Serb nationalists (supplied and armed by the JNA) within Croatia.

Savage fighting ensued, marked by the Serbian forces' deliberate targeting of civilians and of cultural landmarks (including the brutal siege of the medieval port city of of Dubrovnik and the total destruction of the town of Vukovar, a jewel of Baroque architecture). Battles continued until the end of the year, when the UN brokered a cease-fire that left nearly a third of Croatia's territory under the control of Serbian forces. This fighting bore all the features that later characterized the conflict in Bosnia, including the forcible expulsion of civilian populations from conquered areas, known as "ethnic cleansing."

Within Serbia, Miloshevich catered to nationalist sentiment by further tightening restrictions on minorities and instituting a reign of terror against the Albanians in Kosovo. Ultra-nationalist Serb paramilitary groups were given free rein, and there were calls to "cleanse" all non-Serbs from the Serbian lands. 185,000 Albanians in Kosovo were dismissed from their jobs in the state-controlled economy; the non-Serb population was subjected to a new round of random assaults, killings and mass arrests. The hard-pressed Albanians responded to this policy with nonviolent resistance, organizing a civil disobedience campaign and declaring for independence in an underground referendum, held at the beginning of 1992.

Bosnian Independence and the Assault on Bosnia (1992-?)

Following international recognition of Croatian and Slovene independence (January 1992) and news that Macedonia's secession was imminent, the elected government of Bosnia-Herzegovina found itself faced with an impossible choice. The prospect of remaining part of a rump Yugoslavia dominated by Miloshevich was clearly unacceptable to the majority of Bosnia's population, while Bosnian independence was anathema to Serb nationalists both within Bosnia and in Serbia.

A plebiscite on independence was held in Bosnia-Herzegovina in late February 1992. The Serb nationalist party threatened violence and called for a boycott, but participation was high and in an optimistic mood 70% of Bosnian voters (including many Bosnian Serbs) turned out to cast their votes for independence. Despite the fierce rhetoric of Serb nationalism, most Bosnians could simply not imagine that the horrors of World War II would be revisited on their country, whose citizens had lived with each other in tolerance for most of the previous 500 years.

On April 5, 1992, following the declaration of independence by Bosnia's parliament, there was a mass demonstration by citizens of Sarajevo, Serbs, Croats, and Muslims, calling for peace among Bosnia's three major communities. Yugoslav National Army snipers and Serb nationalist militants hidden on surrounding rooftops opened fire on the crowd, killing and wounding scores of unarmed citizens. The following day, JNA units began to shell Sarajevo from prepared positions on the hillsides overlooking the city and columns of troops and tanks crossed the Drina River from Serbia into eastern Bosnia. Initially armed only with police sidearms and hunting rifles, later with captured and smuggled weapons, Bosnians tried to defend their newly independent country against the onslaught of the Serb nationalist forces unleashed by Miloshevich.

By April 7, 1992, Bosnia-Herzegovina's independence had been officially recognized by the United States and by most European countries. On May 22, 1992, Bosnia-Herzegovina was admitted as a full member of the United Nations. But an arms embargo, imposed on all of the former Yugoslavia by the UN (in 1991, at the request of the Belgrade government, and since then maintained at the insistence of the US and its Western European allies), has in effect barred the internationally recognized Bosnian government from acquiring the means to exercise its right to self-defense, guaranteed under the UN Charter:

"Nothing in this present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." [United Nations Charter, Article 51] Meanwhile Miloshevich and Serb nationalist forces in Bosnia have at their disposal the resources of the Yugoslav National Army, including the fourth largest arsenal in Cold-War Europe. They have used these weapons to lethal effect in their assault on Bosnia's cities, towns and villages. Over a million people have been bombed and driven from their homes, hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed and wounded. Serb nationalist forces have overrun 70% of Bosnia's territory, "cleansing" conquered areas by driving out or killing the non-Serb inhabitants.

Among the methods of "ethnic cleansing" employed by the Serb forces are the selective killing of the non-Serb community's civic, religious and intellectual leaders, the confinement of all males of military age in concentration camps, and the use of mass rapes as a weapon of terror and abasement. The dwindling number of non-Serb inhabitants remaining in the zones under Serb control have been barred from employment in the public sector and are required to display white flags on their places of residence. Denied police protection by the nationalist authorities, non-Serbs (Muslims, Croats, Gypsies, and Jews) remaining in Banja Luka and other occupied Bosnian towns have been subjected to vicious attacks, including robbery, murder and rape, carried out with impunity in broad daylight. The nationalists have also enacted antimiscegenation statutes that make it a crime for a non-Serb to marry or engage in sexual relations with a Serb.

Nationalist extremists are also trying to wipe out any physical evidence that could remind future generations that people other than Serbs ever lived together in peace in Bosnia. Historic mosques, churches, and synagogues as well as national libraries, archives, and museums have been torched, dynamited and bulldozed throughout the areas under assault by nationalist forces. The practitioners of "ethnic cleansing" are not content to terrorize and kill the living; they want to eliminate the memory of the past as well.

Amidst the surrounding carnage, many Bosnians of all backgrounds continue to cling to the ideal of coexistence. There are an estimated 55,000 Bosnian Serbs among the 380,000 citizens of Sarajevo who still remain in a city that has thus far endured more than a year of unremitting Serb bombardment and a harsh winter under siege. Although Muslim Slavs constitute a majority among the over two million people crowded into the areas still under the control of Bosnia's internationally recognized government, both its civil administration and its army have remained multi-ethnic in composition. Bosnia's vice-president and the deputy commander of the Bosnian armed forces are both Bosnian Serbs. Citizens of Serb and Croat background continue to live, work and worship in Sarajevo, Tuzla and other towns under the Bosnian government's control and---while the miseries of war and the flood of refugees into these enclaves have exacerbated social tensions---there is no officially sanctioned ethnic or religious discrimination.

Sought out, encouraged and given legitimacy by European diplomats in search of the "Croat faction," in the spring of 1993 Croat nationalists began their own "ethnic cleansing" campaign in an effort to carve an all-Croat "homeland" out of Herzegovina. Indications are (at this writing) that the Croats and the Serbs may be on the verge of a deal to carve up Bosnia between them, perhaps with a small area around Sarajevo left as a reservation for surviving Bosnian Muslims and for any other Bosnians unwilling to reside in ethnically pure states.

Meanwhile, initiatives to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia's government and calls for forceful international intervention to end the conflict have been continually blocked in the UN and in other international forums. Calls for cease-fires and for a stop to the atrocities have gone unheeded in the absence of any meaningful measures to enforce them. The governments of Russia, the United States and its European allies appear to have concluded, for the present, that conceding to the Serb nationalists the full fruits of their aggression will be less trouble---at least in the short run---than assuming the political risks that any intervention might entail. Permitting the Bosnians access to arms, in this analysis, would merely allow them to resist a speedy and convenient solution to the conflict.

The United States and NATO, which only twenty years ago were ready to risk a nuclear confrontation over Yugoslavia, now view its descent into genocide and chaos with detachment, unwilling to step in and anxious only to keep the mayhem from spilling over into areas of more immediate concern. Secretary of State Warren Christopher has stated that, since the conflict in Bosnia "does not affect our vital national interests," America will not intervene. Great Britain, France and our other European allies have stated their disinterest in intervening in even stronger terms. Russia and China, anxious not to create precedents for humanitarian intervention closer to home, have done their best to avert concerted action in the UN. Stopping genocide is, it would appear, not among the political imperatives of the New World Order.

In anticipation of the coming flood of Bosnian refugees, ministers of Western European countries held a meeting at the beginning of June 1993 to coordinate tighter restrictions on asylum and immigration. The siege of the city of Sarajevo (suffering the scars of battle for the first time in 300 years), and the uneven struggle between the two visions of Bosnia, one multi-ethnic and inclusive, the other "purely" Serb and exclusive, continues to this day.

Andras J. Riedlmayer

Harvard University, Summer 1993.

SREDNJOVJEKOVNA BOSNA

Dr Nada Klaic

Jedan od najcjenjenijih historicara u svijetu,po pitanju historije svih juznoslovenskih zemalja,Dr Nada Klaic u svome djelu "SREDNJOVJEKOVNA BOSNA - POLITICKI POLOZAJ BOSANSKIH VLADARA DO TVRTKOVE KRUNIDBE",Zagreb,1989.,naucno je dokazala da Bosna nikada nije bila ni hrvatska ni srpska,nego jedino i iskljucivo BOSANSKA.Zemlja Bosna je po Dr Nadi Klaic potpuno posebna i po narodu i po kulturi i po svojemu postanku.

Dr Nada Klaic dolazi do sljedecih konstatacija:

....No, ove nevjeste projekcije o srpstvu Bosne vrijede isto koliko Sisicevo dokazivanje o hrvatsvu Bosne. Medjutim nekriticki izvjestaj Konstantina Porfirogeneta o Sklavinijama moze posluziti kao podloga za zakljucke samo onom historicaru kome nije odvec stalo do historijske istine. On je uglavnom iste vrijednosti kao i Dukljaninove vijesti o vladanju hrvatskih ili srpskih vladara nad Bosnom. To su tek povremeni izleti susjednih vladara koji nisu niti su mogli izmijeniti stoljetni polozaj bosanskih zemalja jer su one bez Hrvata i Srba odavno isle svojim, od njih posve odijeljenim putem. Carevi podaci za taj posao ne mogu biti mjerodavni, a jos manje vjesta konstrukcija barskog nadbiskupa koji pise sredinom 12. stoljeca.

....Posve razumljivo da Cirkovicu za njegovu teoriju o srpstvu Bosne ne mogu posluziti niti Konstantinovi podaci o naseljenju Srba, jer ih car, a znamo i zasto, stavlja u Srbiju, Paganiju, Zahumlje i Travuniju te Konavle po kriteriju 10-og stoljeca kad su sve te zemlje priznavale bizantsku vlast. Prema tome, ako se sam car nije hvalio da je Bosna od naseljenja srpska, a sigurno bi to vrlo rado ucinio,onda kritickom historicaru ne preostaje drugo nego i na osnovi careva teksta tvrditi da je Bosna od pocetka bila BOSANSKA.

BOSANSKE GRANICE

BOSANSKE GRANICE - Prof. Dr Ivo Banac

(Clanak u biltenu Bosnia News, London, mart 1993.)

...povijesne su cinjenice potpuno jasne. Bosna, posljednja velika srednjovjekovna drzava medu Juznim Slavenima, naglo se prosirila pod banovima i kraljevima dinastije Kotromanica (1254-1463), koji su ispocetka pod svojom vlascu drzali tek sredisnji dio Bosne, oko izvora i gornjeg toka rijeke Bosne - danasnju sarajevsku regiju. Ban Stjepan II Kotromanic (na vlasti od 1314. do 1353.) vladao je vecim dijelom danasnje Bosne i Hercegovine, s izuzetkom unskog bazena na sjeveroistoku, koji je pripadao Hrvatskoj, te trebinjskog podrucja (najistocniji dio danasnje Hercegovine) i gorujeg toka Drine, koji su pripadali Srbiji. Njegova drzava ukljucivala je citavu dalmatinsku obalu od Omisa do Stona. Stjepanov necak Tvrtko I (vladao od 1353. do 1391.) upravljao je vecim dijelom Dalmacije, od Novigradskog mora do Boke, a isto tako i zapadnom Srbijom. Nakon pada bosanske drzave pod otomanske Turke 1463. pristase novomanihejskebosanske crkve kojoj je pripadala i vecina bosanske feudalne gospode, stali su se masovno obracati na Islam. To masovno obracenje, jedinstveno po opsegu, osiguralo je Bosni poseban polozaj unutar otomanskog carstva. Bosanska muslimanska elita stekla je status nasljednog plemstva, neuobicajen za otomansku drzavu.

Na vrhuncu otomanske moci u sesnaestom stoljecu, bosanski ejalet ukljucivao je ne samo cijelu danasnju Bosnu i Hercegovinu nego i velik dio dalmatinskog zaleda, Liku, Kordun, Baniju i zapadnu Slavoniju (kliski, licki, bihacki i pakracki sandzak), te zapadnu Srbiju (zvornicki sandzak) i cijeli novopazarski Sandzak.

Opadanje otomanske moci zapocelo je probijanjem Kara Mustafine opsade Beca 1683. godine i Leopoldovim zauzecem Ugarske, Hrvatske i Slavonije. Habsburzima su se pridruzili i Mleci, prosirivsi svoje dalmatinske posjede na racun otomanske Bosne. Tijekom tog, takozvanog Beckog rata Eugen Savojski prodro je 1687. duboko u bosanski teritorij, i povukao se tek nakon sto je spalio Sarajevo. Bilo je to posljednje razaranje vecih razmjera u povijesti bosanskog glavnog grada prije Slobodana Milosevica. Karlovackim mirom iz 1699. godine ustanovllene su danasnje bosansko-hercegovacke granice na Kordunu i Baniji. Mleci su dobili dalmatinsko zalede od Starigrada u Velebitskom kanalu, preko Knina i Sinja, sve tamo do Vrgorca. U Boki su pak, od otomanske Bosne preuzeli Herceg Novi i Risan.

Nakon Prvog turskog rata 1716-18. i Pozeravackog mira, Habsburzi su dobili otomanski teritorij juzno od Save (Bosanska Posavina), a Mleci su svoje posjede uvecali za tanki pojas zemlje od Plavna do Imotskog, te za dijelove Boke sve do Pastrovica juzno od Budve. Dubrovacka Republika, koja se Mletaka bojala vise nego Osmanlija, nastojala se zastititi od mletackih prisvajanja trazeci da Neum i Sutorina, koji su bili pod dubrovackom upravom, budu odvojeni od mletackih posjeda otomanskim teritorijem. Danasnji bosanski izlaz na more kod Neuma, koji odvaja dubrovacko podrucje od ostale Hrvatske, izravan je rezultat dubrovackih strahovanja u osamnaestom stoljecu. Sadasnja jugozapadna granica Bosne i Hercegovine proizvod je Pozarevackog mira - s tom razlikom sto je bosanski klin kod Sutorine prigrabila N.R. Crna Gora 1945. godine.

Drugi turski rat (1736-39) okoncan je Beogradskim mirom. Habsburzi su ovog puta bili manje uspjesni i morali su se povuci do Save, uspostavivsi tako danasnju sjevernu granicu Bosne i Hercegovine. Koncem osamnaestog stoljeca, Josip II jos jednom je zaratio s Turcima. Cilj mu je bio osvojiti citavu Bosnu, no nakon razlicitih obrata i careve smrti 1790, Bec je s otomanskim carstvom zakljucio mir u Svistovu 1791. Time je otomanska Bosna izgubila Dvor, Dreznik, Petravo Selo, Lapac i Srb, koji su pripali habsburskoj Hrvatskoj. Iz svega ovog moze se zakljuciti da je danasnja granica izmedu Hrvatske i Bosne i Hercegovine stvorena u razdoblju od 1699. do 1791. godine, daleko prije Titova vremena. Ona je ishod bitaka koje su vojevali Ljudevit Badenski i Eugen Savoiski, a oni ocito nisu bili clanovi nikakvog politbiroa. Treba dodati da su turski ratovi u sedamnaestom i osamnaestom stoljecu doveli do velikih migracijskih valova...

Istocne granice Bosne i Hercegovine takoder su oblikovane kroz dugo vremensko razdoblje i to, kao u prethodnom slucaju, prije komunistickog perioda. Bosanski ejalet (kasnije pasaluk) prostirao se s onu stranu Drine u zapadnu Srbiju, do Sapca i Uzica. U osamnaestom stoljecu Bosanski pasaluk sezao je do Loznice i dalje na istok. Za vrijeme ustanaka u Srbiji, Karadordevi su ustanici 1809. presli Drinu, ali je Loznica ostala u posjedu otomanske Bosne jos u prvim desetljecima devetnaestog stolleca. U razdoblju poslije 1831-1833, kad je takozvanih "sest nahija" potpalo pod autonomnu Srbiju, uspostavljena je danasnja bosansko-srpska granica na gornjem toku Drine. Nakon Velike istocne krize 1875-1878, odlukom Berlinskog kongresa Crna Gora se prosirila u Staru Hercegovinu (Niksic, Piva, Drobnjaci) i tako omedila veci dio svoje danasnje granice s Bosnom i Hercegovinom.

Po zavrsetku Balkanskih ratova 1911-13, Srbija i Crna Cora podijelile su medu sobom novopazarski Sandzak i time povukle danasnju istocnu granicu Bosne, s iznimkom vec spomenute Sutorine. Kao i u ranijim turskim ratovima, ratovi Srbije i Crne Gore za nezavisnost stvorili su brojne migracije. Glavnina juznoslavenskog muslimanskog zivlja potrazila je utociste u Bosni i Hercegovini, koja je od 1878. bila pod austrougarskom okupacijom.

Moze se, dakle, s potpunim pouzdanjem reci da granice Bosne i Hercegovine nisu ni proizvoljne ni "komunisticke". Kad ih se suoci s cinjenicama, raznim homogenizatorima i "etnickim cistiteljima" preostaje jos samo jedan argument. Oni tvrde da je Bosna i Hercegovina sama po sebi apsurdna. Ta tvrdnja ima slabe osnove cak i ako zanemarimo kontinuitet bosanske drzave tamo od desetog stoljeca, kad je Konstantin Vll Porfirogenet spomenuo "zemlju Bosnu" u svojem "De administrando imperio". Za bosanske muslimane, koji su se jos 1831. borili protiv Porte za bosansku autonomiju, posebnost Bosne i Hercegovine kao njihove domovine nije dolazila u pitanje. Kao sto ne bi trebalo da bude kamen spoticanja ni za Hrvate, ciji su franjevci sacuvali uspomenu na bosansku drzavu pod Turcima. Sto se pak Srba tice, sadasnji napori njihovih losih voda, usmjereni protiv bosanske nezavisnosti i cjelovitosti, mogu se ostvariti jedino pod cijenu opceg rata, a to moze samo ugroziti kontinuitet njihove prisutnosti u Bosni i Hercegovini Ovaj je rat izmedu ostalog i borba za autenticni kulturni prostor, jednako tako legitiman i nuzan u visenacionalnoj Bosni kao i u drugim susjednim drzavama.

Prof. Dr Ivo Banac

evo jedan klip sa youtuba o bosni i bošnjacima sve tri vjeroispovjesti...

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

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

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

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

Fra Mandic spada u red najcjenjenijih i najpriznatijih povijesnicara medu ustashoidnom dijasporom u Australiji, zapadnoj Evropi i Americi, a popularan je i u SS Hrvatskoj posebno u desnicarskim krugovima.
Ovdje cemo samo navesti neke od provala tog diletanta koji ne samo da je diletant i debil, vec je da tragedija bude veca i falsifikator.

Sjetimo se samo nekih provala tog ludaka: The best of fra Mandic  "Raska bila u sastavu Hrvatske"
" U gornjem opisu hrvatske drzave ne spominje se Panonska Hrvatska jer je ta sredinom 8. st. zivjela samostalnim zivotom pod vrhovnistvom Avara." Pazi ove provale bila samostalna a pod vrhovnistom Avara.

Idemo dalje "Nesto malo prije Duvanjskog sabora i Srbi su se pridruzili hrvatskoj drzavi po svojoj prilici iz bojazni pred vanjskim neprijateljima: Avarima ili Bugarima... U tu jedinicu bili su ukljuceni hrvatski zagorski krajevi (za koje Mandic ljepo gore navodi da se Surbija nazivala i Zagorje a sada su ti zagorski krajevi deo hrvatske drzavne jedinice ), koji su nazvani Bosnom, i srpske zemlje, koje se prozvase Raskom"

Prvo je Surbija zvana i Zagorje bila podjeljena u dva djela (Bosna i Raska) a sada samo malo nize Bosna postaje dio Hrvatske a Raska ostaje srpska!?!?!


"Bosnu pod svojim imenom prvi put spominje staro hrvatsko djelo Methodos na Duvanjskom saboru g.753. Tada je Bosna bila samoupravna POKRAJINA hrvatske drzave"

Bosna se po njemu navodno prvi put spominje 753 godine,.

Kao sto sam rekao fra Mandic je falsifikator koji izmslja izvore kako bi potkrjepio svoje sulude tvrdnje i nebuloze , to je primjetio i John V.A Fine pa u svojoj knjizi "The Bosnian church" na strani 110 kaze sljedece.The Bosnian church strana 110 (skenirana stranica)

I looked at the very bad photographic reproduction of this 1697 list which Mandic publishes and nowhere could i find the title of the works as given by Mandic, which was the only link between chapters and Bosnia. In other words the title did not come from a document of 1697 investigation, but was a reation of Mandic`s.

Ovome bolesniku duzna nije ostala ni najveca Hrvatska historicarka svih vremena Nada Klaic(nju ustase osobito mrze jer je raskrinkala neke njihove mitove i bajcice za laku noc, ali ne dovoljno po mom misljenju).

U kritici Mandivece knjige "rasprave iz stare Hrvatske povijesti" Nada Klaic kaze da se sluzio izmisljenim izvorima koji su nepoznati ozbiljnim istrazivacima Hrvatske povijesti .Dalje navodi kako Mandic nije raspolagao ni sa kakvim novim izvorima koji bi bio nepoznat drugim istrazivacima.

Toliko o Mandicu.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 
Pregled historijskih vrela za Bosnu

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

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



[b]De Administrando Imperio[/b]

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

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

Neki historicari su formirali i spekulativno misljenje da je titula Ban prodrla u Bosnu kroz nekakve njene "politicke veze" "u dodiru sa Hrvatskom',za sto nema apsolutno nikakvih relevantnih dokaza,jer nikada i nigdje nije zabiljezeno da je Bosna ikada bila u statusu nekakve "hrvatske banovine" ikada tokom Srednjeg Vijeka.Takodjer vrlo je bitno naglasiti i to da cijelim tokom postojanja samostalne srednjovjekovne hrvatske drzave nijedan hrvatski vladar ne nosi titulu Ban,nego nose titule Knez i Kralj.Upotreba Banske titule u Hrvatskoj za vrijeme njene srednjovjekovne samostalnosti je bitno drugacija nego u Srednjovjekovnoj Drzavi Bosni,jer se u Hrvatskoj koristi kao titula nizeg ranga od titule vladara zemlje i njena pojava je u Hrvatskoj vise anegdotalna,nego sto je tradicionalna,za razliku od Bosne gdje je ne samo tradicionalna,nego i najvisa vladarska titula! Historijska je nepobitna A cinjenica da titula Ban nikada nije bila hrvatska vladarska titula,nikada je nije nosio nijedan hrvatski vladar,i to tokom cijele srednjovjekovne nezavisnosti Hrvatske,a cinjenica da se titula Ban pojavljuje i u Bosni i u Hrvatskoj,naravno,apsolutno ne znaci da je ona hrvatskog porijekla,jer se mnoge titule sa istim nazivom pojavljuju u razlicitim zemljama na Balkanu.Npr. titula zupan se pojavljuje i u Bosni i u Hrvatskoj i u Srbiji,a jedino sto je zajednicko u svemu tome jeste da je titula zupan Avarskog porijekla,ili primjer mnostva drugih titula,kao sto su to Knez,Vojvoda itd,koji se pojavljuju takodjer u razlicitim zemljama.Ono sto je sustinski bitno jeste upravo njihova drugacija upotreba u svakoj pojedinoj zemlji.Da su Bosnjaci preuzeli titulu Ban iz Hrvatske onda bi je i koristili na isti nacin,ali nisu.Jer,onda bi najvisa titula Bosanskog vladara bila titula Knez,kao sto je to bilo u Hrvatskoj,ali upravo je suprotno,titula Knez u Bosni je titula nizeg ranga,a ne najvisa vladarska titula zemlje.
Iz antickog doba,Spomenik sa nalazista kod Zenice iz 4. stoljeca nove ere

U novijim radovima o ovoj tematici,kao sto je to nacni rad naslovljen "O PORIJEKLU VLADARSKE TITULE BAN U SREDNJOVJEKOVNOJ BOSNI" prezentovan na II internacionalnom kongresu balkanske turkologije odrzanom u Mostaru od 3.-6. septembra 2002.,navode se i primjeri postojanja rijeci i titule Ban i kod Ilira i Kelta,koji su zivjeli na teritoriji Bosne puno prije dolaska Avara.


"Anali" franackog hronicara Einharda

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

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

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


Jovan Kinam o Bosni

 

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

Ljetopis popa Dukljanina

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

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

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

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

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

Da navedemo nekoliko primjera:

-POVELJA DUBROVCANIMA BANA STJEPANA II KOTROMANICA IZ 1332 GODINE:

"15. avgust 1332.)

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

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

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

-JELENA KOTROMANIC,1354 GODINE:

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

-POVELJA KRALJA TVRTKA IZ 1366 GODINE:

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

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

-POVELJA DUBROVCANIMA IZ 1405 GODINE - KRALJ TVRTKO II:

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

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

-PISMO KRALJA STJEPANA TOMASEVICA PAPI IZ 1461 GODINE

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

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

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

-BOSANSKI KRALJEVSKI RODOSLOV IZ 1482 GODINE- PETAR OHMUĆEVIĆ

"Petar,istije Ohmućevića,po starini Bosnjanin,a radi nepovoljnog razumirja i pogube Bosanske,prišašćah njegovijeh starijeh - sad je Dubrov�anin,koji za milost njegove stare gospode slozi i postavi ovo rodoslovlje,za slavu Bosansku i svakoga vridnoga Bosnjanina,dokole Bog dopusti i njegova sveta volja izvrsi."

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

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

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

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


BOSANSKI KRALJEVSKI GRB

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

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

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

Titula koja je isla uz bosansku krunu je bila "kralj Bosne",a titula koja je isla tradicionalno uz srpsku krunu je bila "kralj Srbljem",ali samo u pocetku,jer tu titulu "kralj Srbljem" Tvrtko odbacio 1390 godine i na njeno mjesto stavio titulu "kralj Raske",i zasto je to uradio,vjerovatno zbog toga jer je Srblje tajnovito nestalo sa lica zemlje,pa je tako nestalo i iz Tvrtkove titule.
Vise o Tvrtkovim titulama na sljedecem linku:
http://www.zemljabosna.com/kotromanici.html


Srbi dalje kazu da,posto je stara Bosna podru�je ćirilske, a ne latini�ne pismenosti (osim u natpisima na latinskom i talijanskom), pa je prema tomu srpska, jer je ćirilica " srpsko nacionalno pismo" LOOOOOOOOOOL. Sve povelje Kotromanica i kameni nadgrobni spomenici su "ispisani srpskom ćirilicom" LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL ,sto je apsolutna nebuloza vjerovatno nastala negdje uz gusle,stado ovaca i flasu rakije )

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

Srbi dalje sanjaju da Kotromanići oznacavaju svoj jezik «srpskim» (1333), što po ideolozima pansrpstva zna�i da je «srpska», jer je po njima štokavsko narje�je etni�ki srpsko....po njima i po nikome vise.

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

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

"U starijoj je prošlosti osniva� Srpske pravoslavne Crkve, Sveti Sava, obilježavan kao posjednik sadašnje Hercegovine (i njoj rubnih dijelova). Otud izreka o Bosni i Hercegovini Svetog Save djedovini" LOOOOOOOOOOL

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

Par Srba je takodjer primjeceno i nadasve ismijano,kako su "ustvrdili" da se u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni pojavljuju imena koja su "specifi�no srpska" (Vukasin, Radoje, Vukša, Mitar, Vukan, Milutin, Mr�a, Božidar, Dražeta...??? LOOOOOOOOOOL

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

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

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

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

 

 

 
Srpski pokusaji manipulisanja nekim Bosanskim poveljama

U sljedecih nekoliko primjera se moze vidjeti samo jedno: srpski pokusaji manipulisanja historijom Bosne,u cilju prisvajanja Bosne i to svim raspolozivim sredstvima,pa i prekrajanjem historije po vlastitoj volji:
PAPINO PISMO DUBROVCANIMA IZ 1187 GODINE
POVELJA BOSANSKOGA BANA NINOSLAVA DUBROVCANIMA (1232-1235)
POVELJA STJEPANA II KOTROMANICA DUBROVCANIMA IZ 1333 GODINE
BOSANSKA KRALJEVSKA PORODICA KOTROMANIC
POVELJA DUBROVCANIMA KRALJA TVRTKA IZ 1378 GODINE
Neki skenovi iz knjiga na Engleskom jeziku, Fine,Malcolm,Shewill,Maier,Lampe,Clancy...

Balkan at the crossroads p.2 Click me

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

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

P 14-15

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

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

But tell that to the Asiatic barbarians.

Bosnia a cultural history written by a Croat historian Ivan Lovrenovic p 93 Bravo Ivan
Lovrenovic argues that the term ‘Bosnian Croat’ dates only from the 19th century, and thus belongs among the phenomena of the modern era in Bosnia, above all the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and the great changes that it wrought in the region. While agreeing with Bosnian historian Srecko Džaja’s thesis that Bosnia’s Catholics had for centuries felt a kinship to the Catholics of Western Europe, he believes that ‘Croatization’ is a modern phenomenon, inseparable from the 19th-century ideology of bringing all Croats into one state, from political events following Austria’s annexation of Bosnia, and from the concept of ‘Catholic Croatian national sentiment’ introduced by the church hierarchy. “Before the modern political use of “Croat” as the name of a nation near the end of the 19th century,’ Lovrenovic writes, ‘… Bosnian Catholics with great pride considered Bosnia alone as their country and homeland…’ Nearly 150 years of forgetting their Bosnian [pre-Catholic] roots produced the ‘self-ignorance’ of today’s Bosnian Croats…

Agresorski Srpsko-Hrvatski mitomani

Ovo kao da su neki likovi iz Tolkinovog Gospodara Prstenova