dupli

Tada nije zaživjela jer su vaši apetiti bili drugačiji, u zadnjem ratu jer vojno nije ostvarena, ali je bila pokušana.

Nije pokusana, jer na toj mapi fali Banat, a tu su Split, i sve zemlje juzno od toga... pokusano je nesto drugo, u drugim okolnostima i vremenu, i tesko da se moze vuci paralela izmedju te dve epohe. Cak ni teritorijalna ekspanzija nije u istom duhu, jer je 1991. pokusano na razvalinama vece zemlje da se dobije ono gde zive Srbi... nije to bas ovde tema...

Ja isticem jedan siri istorijski kontekst, gde se na tesnom prostoru Balkana gde zive mnogi narodi pokusala, a nekad i ostvarivala ideja o teritorijalnoj ekspanziji, i na to niko nije imun... jedino ako mislis da je logicno da Hrvatskoj pripada Trebinje, Foca, Gorazde, Visegrad, Zvornik... a Madjarskoj Gospic...

Radi se o davnoj ideji i propagandi jos Austrougarske da se jedino srpski nacionalizam i ekspanzija gleda kao opasnost, dok se kod svih ostalih takve ideje podrazumevaju...e zato sam stavio mape na prosloj strani, komotno mogu i ovu da dodam...



Brote ce npr ovo da ti Muslimani, pa ce da te pitaju za bosansko more...ne bi imali nista protiv da se okupaju u bosanskom jadranu...

Ukljucimo sve ovo kao argumentaciju ako hocemo ozbiljno da diskutujemo...

Pusti bolan Brote, oni imaju Panonsko jezero u Trokutu. Dosta im.

Zoom out



Za nekog sa strane, koji gleda ove mrvice od drzava na Balkanu kako se privremeno goje i nestaju...

Moze samo da pita - ko ovima drma kavez?!

"Od Trebinja do brodskijeh vrata nije bilo Srba ni Hrvata."

Šuti ti i bućkaj u toj lokvi.

Srbi da nisu bili pohlepni i da je 1945. Beograd postao grad na tromeđi triju saveznih republika (Vojvodina je imala svoj vlastiti NOO, zaseban od srbijanskog), mi ne bismo imali nikakve mogućnosti 90.-ih ostvariti samostalnost RH bez prekrajanja granica koje bi mnogo više išle u korist Srba nego je na kraju ispao slučaj. Vjerojatno do samostalnosti uopće ne bi došlo. Srbi bi imali pravo na konstitutivnost u hrvatskoj republici jer bi činili mnogo veći udio u stanovništvu SRH, a Beograd bi tijekom Druge Juge postao svejugoslavenski grad. Ukratko, pohlepa ih je zahebala, ali ni danas ne odustaju od iste kad pričaju priče o Srijemu i sl.

Oba su nas gosta saletila.

Na danasnji dan pre ravno 100 godina pocinje Prvi svetski rat...



Telegram da je odgovor na ultimatum nezadovoljavajuci dolazi u Nis gde je bilo sediste srpske vlade tad...zavrsna recenica je: "Od ovog trenutka Austrougarska se smatra u ratu sa Srbijom."



Srpska konjica na granici ceka udar Austrougara...



Srpski vojnik ceka napad na Kalemegdanskoj tvrdjavi...



Dan ranije miniran je zeleznicki most izmedju Beograda i Zemuna...



Austrougarska topovnjaca Bodrog isplovila je iz zemunske luke u 22.30... u 23.00 pocinje da bombarduje Kalemegdan, Dorcol i naselja uz Savu...i to je ustvari POCETAK... a ne ubistvo Ferdinanda...



...posle tacno 100 godina nekada zastrasujuci Bodrog truli kao olupina u blizini Zemuna... ima neke simbolicke pravde u toj paraleli...

Behind the Sinking of the Lusitania


This week marks the 75th anniversary of World War II, as last month marked the 100th anniversary of World War I.

Thus, it is a good time for Eugene Windchy’s “Twelve American Wars: Nine of Them Avoidable.” A compelling chapter in this new book, by the author of “Tonkin Gulf,” deals with how Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, schemed to drag America into Britain’s war in 1915.

In 1907, Britain launched the Lusitania, “the greyhound of the sea,” the fastest passenger ship afloat. In 1913, Churchill called in the head of Cunard and said Lusitania would have to be refitted for a war he predicted would break out in September 1914.

The Lusitania, writes Windchy, was “refitted as a cargo ship with hidden compartments to hold shells and other munitions. By all accounts there were installed revolving gun mounts.”

On Aug. 4, 1914, after war was declared, Lusitania went back into dry dock. More space was provided for cargo, and the vessel was now carried on Cunard’s books as “an auxiliary cruiser.”

Churchill visited the ship in dry dock and referred to Lusitania as “just another 45,000 tons of live bait.”

When war began, German submarine captains, to save torpedoes, would surface and permit the crews of cargo ships to scramble into lifeboats, and then they would plant bombs or use gunfire to sink the vessels.

Churchill’s response was to outfit merchant ships with hidden guns, order them to ram submarines, and put out “Q-ships,” disguised as merchant ships, which would not expose their guns until submarines surfaced.

German naval commanders began to order submarines to sink merchant ships on sight.

First Sea Lord Sir John (“Jackie”) Fisher said he would have done the same.

Churchill, seeing an opportunity to bring America into Britain’s war, wrote the Board of Trade: “It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany. … We want the traffic — the more the better — and if some of it gets into trouble, the better still.”

Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan wanted to warn Americans not to travel aboard British ships. But President Woodrow Wilson, writes Windchy, “said that American citizens had a right to travel on belligerent ships with impunity, even within a war zone,” a defiance of common sense and an absurd interpretation of international law.

On May 1, 1915, Lusitania set sail from New York. As Windchy writes, the ship “secretly carried munitions and Canadian troops in civilian clothes, which legally made it fair game for (German) U-boats.

“After the war, Churchill … admitted that the Lusitania carried a ‘small consignment of rifle ammunition and shrapnel shells weighing 173 tons.’ New York Customs Collector Dudley Malone told President Wilson that ‘practically all her cargo was contraband of various kinds.’”

Future Secretary of State Robert Lansing knew that British passenger ships carried war materiel. German diplomats in New York warned American passengers they were in danger on the Lusitania. And instead of sailing north of Ireland to Liverpool, the Lusitania sailed to the south, into waters known to be the hunting ground of German submarines.

Lusitania blew up and sank in 18 minutes. Munitions may have caused the secondary explosion when the torpedo hit. Some 1,200 people perished, including 128 Americans. America was on fire, ready for war when the next incidents occurred, as they would in 1917 with the sinking of U.S. merchant ships in similar waters.

Had Wilson publicly warned U.S. citizens not to sail on the ships of belligerent nations and forbidden U.S.-flagged merchant ships to carry contraband to nations at war, America might have stayed out of the war, which might have ended in a truce, not a German defeat.

There might have been no Adolf Hitler and no World War II.

http://buchanan.org/blog/behind-sinking-lusitania-6935

Još jedan pokušaj "njemačkog" revizionizma.

Ovaj put od strane američkih domoljuba...

World War I


In 1998, Ferguson published the critically acclaimed The Pity of War: Explaining World War One, which with the help of research assistants he was able to write in just five months. This is an analytic account of what Ferguson considered to be the ten great myths of the Great War. The book generated much controversy, particularly Ferguson's suggestion that it might have proved more beneficial for Europe if Britain had stayed out of the First World War in 1914, thereby allowing Germany to win. Ferguson has argued that the British decision to intervene was what stopped a German victory in 1914–15. Furthermore, Ferguson expressed disagreement with the Sonderweg interpretation of German history championed by some German historians such as Fritz Fischer, Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Hans Mommsen and Wolfgang Mommsen, who argued that the German Empire deliberately started an aggressive war in 1914. Likewise, Ferguson has often attacked the work of the German historian Michael Stürmer, who argued that it was Germany's geographical situation in Central Europe that determined the course of German history.

On the contrary, Ferguson maintained that Germany waged a preventive war in 1914, a war largely forced on the Germans by reckless and irresponsible British diplomacy. In particular, Ferguson accused the British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey of maintaining an ambiguous attitude to the question of whether Britain would enter the war or not, and thus confusing Berlin over just what was the British attitude towards the question of intervention in the war. Ferguson accused London of unnecessarily allowing a regional war in Europe to escalate into a world war. Moreover, Ferguson denied that the origins of National Socialism could be traced back to Imperial Germany; instead Ferguson asserted the origins of Nazism could only be traced back to the First World War and its aftermath.

Ferguson attacked a number of ideas which he called "myths" in the book. They are listed here, (with his counter-arguments in parentheses):

Germany was a highly militarist country before 1914. (Ferguson argued that Germany was Europe's most anti-militarist country when compared to countries like Britain and France.)
The naval threat posed by Germany drove Britain into an informal alliance with France and Russia before 1914. (Ferguson argues that the British decided to align themselves with Russia and France seeing them as more influential and powerful than Germany.)
British policy was due to a legitimate fear of Germany. (Ferguson shows how Germany posed no significant threat to Britain and British fears were driven by propaganda and economic self interest.)
The pre-1914 arms race was consuming increasingly larger portions of national budgets at an unsustainable rate. (Ferguson demonstrates using actual budget information of the European powers that the only limitations on more military spending before 1914 were political, not economic.)
That World War I was an act of aggression on the part of Germany that provoked the British to stop Germany from conquering Europe. (Ferguson infers that if Germany had been victorious over France and Russia, something like the European Union would have been created in 1914. It would have been for the best if Britain had chosen to opt out of war in 1914, as Germany just wanted its "place in the sun.")
Most people were enthusiastic when the war started in 1914. (Ferguson claims that most Europeans were saddened by the start of war, especially when it dragged on long after it was supposed to end.)
That propaganda was successful in making men wish to fight. (Ferguson states that propaganda was not nearly as effective as most experts argue.)[48]
The Allies utilized their economic resources to the fullest. (Ferguson argues that the allies made poor use of their vast economic resources such as those coming from their colonies as well as corruption in the war time governments. France and Britain both possessed huge colonial possessions that offered a plethora of resources as well as man power.)
That the British and the French possessed better armies than the central powers. (Ferguson claims that the German Army was superior, with better equipment and leadership.)
The Allies were better at killing Germans throughout the war. (Ferguson statistically shows that the Germans were actually far superior in exacting casualties than the Allies, this is due to German strategy and use of poison gas.)
The majority of soldiers hated fighting in the war due to intolerable conditions. (Ferguson asserts that most soldiers fought due to nationalism and a sense of duty.)
The British treated German prisoners more humanely than the Germans did. (Ferguson cites numerous occasions in which British officers ordered the killing of German prisoners of war.)
Germany was faced with reparations that could not be paid except at the expense of the German economy. (Ferguson attempts to prove that Germany could have paid reparations if they had been willing.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson

Slični stavovi i vodećeg britanskog povjesničara mlađe generacije.

BBC je izbacio dokumentarac o Prvom svjetskom u kojem se obrušavaju na njegove stavove odnosno uglavnom na to da je V.B. trebala ostati izvan rata i da bi ishod bio sličan današnjoj EU.

Tipične engleske svinjarije...

Kad prave emisiju o Romanovima, ubace demonstracije protiv Putina... gamad...

Obrušavaju na što?

Da nisu trebali ući u PSR?

Da, obrusili su se na obrazlozenja kako nije trebalo srljati u sukob tj. napravili su zestoku apologetiku ulaska u Prvi svjetski rat.

Ličani su pokazali posebnu odanost Monarhiji i Caru


Posebnu odanost Monarhiji i Caru iskazali su Ličani. Ni puna četiri desetljeća, koliko je bilo prošlo otkako je ukinuta Vojna Krajina nisu izbrisala vojnički duh nekadašnjih graničara. Na proglas o općoj mobilizaciji u vojni ured prijavljivali su se svi Ličani, bez obzira na to jesu li služili u vojsci ili nisu. Opća mobilizacija kao da je kod njih aktivirala „graničarske gene“ te su bili ustrajni u nakani da pođu „proti Srbadiji, koja je uvriedila našeg cesara“. Uskoro je uslijedilo veliko razočarenje kada je dijelu Ličana rečeno da ne mogu biti primljeni u vojnu službu jer prema propisima ne podliježu vojnoj obavezi. Ličane je uhvatio šok i nevjerica jer „kada car zove, mora poći svaki mužki, koji može da ponese pušku!“ Slučajevi iz pojedinih sela govore da su se na poziv za mobilizaciju odazvali svi muškarci, pa čak i starci. Cijelo selo veselilo se njihovom časnom odlasku, a kada su se vratili, u selu je zavladala velika žalost jer se nije dalo da graničari dokažu svoju staru hrvatsku vjernost Caru. Starci su čak molili vojne vlasti da makar obavijeste Cara da nisu oni krivi, što im se ne dozvoljava da „srbskoj aždaji kundacima porazbijaju glave“.

Stogodišnjica: Kronologija 1014.-1918. (8)

Vojna povijest, broj 41., kolovoz 2014.

Dobili su na Ceru i Kolubari takve batine, da se posle vise nisu pojavili preko Drine...

Pazi ti to beskicmenjastvo: „proti Srbadiji, koja je uvriedila našeg cesara"... nije uvredila starog Franca, nego ubila okupatora koji je dosao da zastrasi Srbe na Vidovdan...

Ima li kod vas što da nije na Vidovdan ili Đurđevdan?

Ima Juka...Mitrovdan, Sveti Dimitrije, u narodu poznat kao dan hajduckog rastanka...moja slava u Novembru...

nekad dobiješ, nekad daš, ovi što su davali na ceru, ipak pobjegoše do grčkih otoka, ostaviše žene, djecu, nejač.......

Vidimo gdje su preteče HTVa, a Doc ozbiljno citira

http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Drustvo/ ... je.lt.html

Od 25. puka „vražje” divizije do zarobljeništva u Rusiji

U izlaganju „Borbeni put 42. divizije 1914. u Srbiji” Aleksandar Životić naveo je da je Tito služio u 10. četi, 3. bataljona, 25. puka „vražje” divizije.

– Arčibald Rajs, koji je kasnije anketirao žrtve, utvrdio je da su zločine činili 26. 27. i 28. puk. Međutim, kasnija istraživanja pokazala su da je i dopunski bataljon 25. puka koji je vodio tadašnji major Slavko Štancer takođe odgovoran za niz zlodela – naveo je Životić.

"Vaše Visočanstvo, izgubili smo rat."

Helmuth von Moltke, rujan 1914.

Obrazlažući razloge svoje ostavke, Burns objašnjava da u slučaju da Francuska izgubi rat, Engleska više nikad neće imati isti utjecaj na kontinentu, a Nijemci će dati sve od sebe da je poraze. Burns se pri tome poziva na snagu njemačke industrije koja se neće dati oslabiti niti jednim ratom. Posebno upozorava na ustrajnost njemačkog naroda kojeg opisuje riječima koje iz današnje perspektive zvuče proročanski: Tako krjepak, svoje vrijednosti svjestan narod, kao što je njemački, ne da se vezati lisičinama koje mu kuju. Besprijekornom požrtvovnošću – pa makar morao i najsiromašniji radnik i zadnji filir iz džepa izvaditi – sagradit će oni, ako njemačku flotu razorimo, novo brodovlje koje je dvaput ili triput toliko.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Burns