Användare:Cledrupide/sandlåda

Efter den växande nationalistiska tendensen i Europa från 1700-talet och framåt, såsom Italiens enande, så upplevde Serbien – efter att ha fått sitt första furstendöme inom Osmanska riket år 1817 – en populär önskan efter ett fullständigt enande med serberna inom de återstående områdena, i huvudsak de serber bosatta i de angränsande områdena.^{[källa behövs]}

Idén om en territorial expansion för Serbien beskrevs först år 1844 i Načertanije, ett hemligt politiskt program för Furstendömet Serbien, där det stod att den nya serbiska staten skulle komma att inkludera de angränsande områdena Montenegro, norra Albanien, Bosnien och Herzegovina.^[1] I början av 1900-talet planerade samtliga politiska partier inom Kungariket Serbien (förutom Serbiens socialdemokratiska parti) att bilda Balkanfederationen, som rent generellt accepterade idén om att ena alla serber under en serbisk stat.^[2] Från och med grundandet av furstendömet fram till första världskriget expanderade det serbiska territoriet konstant.^[3]

Vid slutet av Balkankriget lyckades kungariket Serbien att expandera söderut, även om detta mottogs med blandade reaktioner då löftena om att få land som angränsade mot Adriatiska havet inte fullföljdes. Istället fick Serbien ta emot territorium inom Vardarmakedonien som var tänkta att bli en del av kungariket Bulgarien och den serbiska armén var nu tvungna att lämna de kustangränsande områdena som skulle komma att bli en del av det nybildade furstendömet Albanien. Denna händelse, tillsammans med den österrikisk-ungerska annekteringen av Bosnien, frustrerade majoriteten av de serbiska politikerna, då det fortfarande fanns en stor del serber som återstod utanför kungariket.^{[källa behövs]}

Den serbiska segern i första världskriget var tilltänkt att fungera som en kompensation till denna situation och en öppen debatt stod mellan anhängarna av läran om Storserbien, som försvarade införlivandet av de delarna inom det besegrade österrikisk-ungerska imperiet där serber bodde, något som motsattes av de som inte bara ansåg att man borde ena alla serbiska landområden, utan att även inkludera sydslaviska nationer till att bli en ny nation. Bland andra anledningar, men även på grund av rädslan för bildandet av ett större och starkare ortodoxt Serbien, som slutligen hade kunnat bli allierade med Ryssland, så beslutades det om att bilda en blandad sydslavisk stat, där andra nationaliteter hade kunnat utgöra en balans i den serbiska hegemonin.^{[källa behövs]}

Den serbiska kungafamiljen Karađorđević var tänkt att styra denna nya stat, benämnd Serbernas, kroaternas och slovenernas kungarike, som skulle komma att byta namn till Kungariket Jugoslavien år 1929. Inledningsvis kände apologeterna av den storserbiska doktrinen sig nöjda, då det huvudsakliga målet; att ena alla landområden bebodda av serber under en serbisk monarkisk dynasti, mestadels hade uppnåts. Under mellankrigstiden försvarade majoriteten av de serbiska politikerna ett starkt centraliserat land, medan deras motståndare krävde en större autonomi för områdena. Denna spänning ledde till skapandet av motsatta nationalistiska organisationer som kulminerade samtidigt som Kung Alexander I mördades år 1934.^{[källa behövs]}

Under Nazitysklands invasion av Jugoslavien år 1941 kom dessa spänningar att leda till ett av de mest brutala inbördeskrig som någonsin skett under andra världskriget. Den kungliga regeringen kom snart att kapitulera, och motståndet drevs i huvudsak av tjetniker, som försvarade återställandet av monarkin, samt partisanerna, som stödde idén om ett upprättande av en kommunistisk jugoslavisk stat. Serberna delades in i dessa två fraktioner, som inte bara slogs mot Nazityskland och alla andra grannländer som var allierade med axelmakterna som även invaderade olika områden i Jugoslavien — italienarna, ungrarna och bulgarerna — men även andra. Vid sidan av detta tog även andra jugoslaviska icke-serbiska nationalister fördel av denna situation och allierade sig själva med axelmakterna, då de såg detta ögonblick som deras historiska möjlighet att fullfölja sina egna irredentistiska aspirationer, där den oberoende staten Kroatien var den mest brutala av de övriga.^{[källa behövs]}

Efter detta krig blev den segrande partisiske ledaren marskalk Josip Broz Tito Jugoslaviens statschef fram till sin död år 1980. Under hans tid som ledare var landet uppdelat i sex olika republiker. År 1976 skapades två autonoma provinser i Socialistiska republiken Serbien; Socialistiska autonoma provinsen Kosovo och Socialistiska autonoma provinsen Vojvodina. Under denna tid fängslades de flesta anhängarna till den storserbiska ideologin för förräderi, eller hamnade i exil. Inom resten av den serbiska befolkningen blev den stora majoriteten starka anhängare av det nya alliansfria Jugoslavien.^{[källa behövs]}

Under Jugoslaviska krigen på 1990-talet anklagades Serbien för att grunda en entitet vid namn Storserbien genom Belgrads direkta inblandning i de icke erkända serbisk entiteterna som tjänstgjorde i Bosnien och Hercegovina och Kroatien.^[4]

Den förste personen som formulerade idén om en modern, lingvistikbaserad, idé om panserbism var Dositej Obradović (1739–1811), en författare och tänkare som dedikerade sina skrifter till de "slavoserbiska folken", något han beskrev som "the inhabitants of Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro, Dalmatia, Croatia, Syrmium, Banat, and Bačka", and who he regarded as all his "Serbian brethren, regardless of their church and religion". Other proponents of Pan-Serbism included historian Jovan Rajić and politician and lawyer Sava Tekelija, both of whom published works incorporating many of the aforementioned areas under a single umbrella name of "Serbian lands".^[5]The concept of Pan-Serbism espoused by these three was not an imperialist one, based upon the notion of Serbian conquest, but a rationalist one. They all believed that rationalism would overcome the barriers of religion that separated the Slavs into Orthodox Christians, Catholics, and Muslims, uniting the peoples as one nation.

The idea of a unification and homogenization by force was propounded by Petar II Petrović-Njegoš (1813–1851).^[5]

• Wikisource har originalverk relaterade till Cledrupide/sandlåda.
  Cledrupide/sandlåda

Roots of the Greater Serbian ideology are often traced back to Serbian minister Ilija Garašanin's Načertanije (1844).^[7] Načertanije (Начертаније) was influenced by "Conseils sur la conduite a suivre par la Serbie", a document written by Polish Prince Adam Czartoryski in 1843 and the revised version by Polish ambassador to Serbia, Franjo Zach, "Zach's Plan".^[8][9] From the 1850s onward, this concept has had a significant influence on Serbian politics.^{[källa behövs]}

"A plan must be constructed which does not limit Serbia to her present borders, but endeavors to absorb all the Serbian people around her."^[7]

–Ilija Garašanin, Načertanije

The work claimed lands that were inhabited by Bulgarians, Macedonians, Albanians, Montenegrins, Bosnians, Hungarians and Croats as part of Greater Serbia.^[7] Garašanin's plan also included methods of spreading Serbian influence in the claimed lands.^[10] He proposed ways to influence Croats and Slavic Muslims, who Garašanin regarded as "Serbs of Catholic faith" and "Serbs of Islamic faith".^[7] This plan was kept secret until 1967 and has been interpreted by some as a blueprint for Serbian national unification, with the primary concern of strengthening Serbia's position by inculcating Serbian and pro-Serbian national ideology in all surrounding peoples that are considered to be devoid of national consciousness.^[10][8]

The most notable Serbian linguist of the 19th century, Vuk Karadžić, was a follower of the view that all south Slavs that speak the Shtokavian dialect (of Serbo-Croatian) were Serbs, speaking the Serbian language. As this definition implied that large areas of continental Croatia, Dalmatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, including areas inhabited by Roman Catholics – Vuk Karadžić is considered by some to be the progenitor of the Greater Serbia program. More precisely, Karadžić was the shaper of modern secular Serbian national consciousness, with the goal of incorporating all indigenous Shtokavian speakers (Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Muslim) into one, modern Serbian nation.

There are at least 5 million people who speak the same language, but by religion they can be split into three groups ... Only the first 3 million call themselves Serbs, but the rest will not accept the name.^[11]

–Vuk Karadžić, Srbi svi i svuda (Serbs All and Everywhere)

This view is not shared by Andrew Baruch Wachtel (Making a Nation, Breaking a Nation) who sees him as a partisan of South Slav unity, albeit in a limited sense, in that his linguistic definition emphasized what united South Slavs rather than the religious differences that had earlier divided them. However, one might argue that such a definition is very partisan: Karadžić himself eloquently and explicitly professed that his aim was to unite all native Shtokavian speakers whom he identified as Serbs. Therefore, Vuk Karadžić's central linguistic-political aim was the growth of the realm of Serbdom according to his ethnic-linguistic ideas and not a unity of any sort between Serbs and the other nations.

Mall:Main article

Serbian writers and politicians in Austria-Hungary Svetozar Miletić and Mihailo Polit-Desančić fiercely opposed the Greater Serbia ideology, as well as the premier Serbian socialist from Serbia proper, Svetozar Marković. They all envisioned some sort of "Balkan confederation" that would include Serbia, Bulgaria and sometimes Romania, plus Vojvodina, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, should the Austro-Hungarian Empire dissolve.^{[källa behövs]}

The term Greater Serbia first appears in a derogatory manner in a book authored by a Serbian socialist Svetozar Marković in 1872. The title "Velika Srbija" (Greater Serbia) was meant to express the author's dismay at the prospect of expansion of the Serbian state without social and cultural reforms as well as possible ethnic confrontation with neighboring nations, from Croats to Bulgarians.^{[källa behövs]}

Mall:Main article

The idea of reclaiming historic Serbian territory has been put into action several times during the 19th and 20th centuries, notably in Serbia's southward expansion in the Balkan Wars. Serbia claimed "historical rights" to the possession of Macedonia, acquired by Stephen Dušan in fourteenth century.^[12]:25–27

...for economic independence, Serbia must acquire access to the Adriatic Sea and one part of the Albanian coastline: by occupation of the territory or by acquiring economic and transportation rights to this region. This, therefore, implies occupying an ethnographically foreign territory, but one that must be occupied due to particularly important economic interests and vital needs.^[13]

–Jovan Cvijić

Serbia gained significant territorial expansion in the Balkan Wars and almost doubled its territory, with the areas populated mostly by non-Serbs (Albanians, Bulgarians, Turks and others).^{[12]:159–164} The Kingdom of Serbia temporarily occupied most of the interior of Albania and Albania's Adriatic coast. A series of massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars were committed by the Serbian and Montenegrin Army.^[12] According to the Report of the International Commission on the Balkan Wars, Serbia consider annexed territories "as a dependency, a sort of conquered colony, which these conquerors might administer at their good pleasure".^[12] Newly acquired territories were subjected to military government, and were not included in Serbia's constitutional system.^[12] The opposition press demanded the rule of law for the population of the annexed territories and the extension of the constitution of the Kingdom of Serbia to these regions.^[12]

Mall:Main article

Extremist Greater Serbian nationalist groups included the secret society called the Black Hand, headed by Serbian colonel Dragutin Dimitrijević Apis, which took an active and militant stance on the issue of a Greater Serbian state. This organization is believed to have been responsible for numerous atrocities following the Balkan Wars in 1913.^[14] In 1914, Young Bosnia member Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, which set off an international crisis that led to the First World War.

Mall:Main article

By 1914 the Greater Serbian concept was eventually replaced by the Yugoslav Pan-Slavic movement. The change in approach was meant as a means to gain support of other Slavs which neighboured Serbs who were also occupied by Austria-Hungary. The intention to create a south Slav or "Yugoslav" state was expressed in the Niš declaration by Serbian premier Nikola Pašić in 1914, as well as in Serbia's regent Aleksandar's statement in 1916. The documents showed that Serbia would pursue a policy that would integrate all territory that contained Serbs and southern Slavs, including Croatians, Slovenes and Bosnian Muslims.^{[källa behövs]}

The Treaty of London (1915) of the allies would assign to Serbia the territories of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Srem, Bačka, Slavonia (against Italian objections) and northern Albania (to be divided with Montenegro).^{[källa behövs]}

In 1918, the Triple Entente (Britain, France, and Russia) defeated Germany and Austria-Hungary. Serbia, which was allied with the Entente, pressured the allies to give Serbia the territory it requested. After the First World War, Serbia achieved a maximalist nationalist aspirations with the incorporation of the south Slavic regions of Austria-Hungary and Montenegro, into a Serbian-dominated Kingdom of Yugoslavia.^[15] The Allies agreed to give the lands of Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina to Serbia. At this time Montenegro had already been annexed by Serbia.^[16][17]

Serbian and Yugoslav nationalists claimed that the peoples' had few differences and were only separated by religious divide imposed by occupiers. It was under this belief that Serbia believed the large annexations would be followed by assimilation. During the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, the government of the Kingdom pursued a linguistic Serbisation policy towards the Macedonians in Macedonia,^[18] then called "Southern Serbia" (unofficially) or "Vardar Banovina" (officially). The dialects spoken in this region were referred to as dialects of Serbo-Croatian.^[19]Either way, those southern dialects were suppressed with regards education, military and other national activities, and their usage was punishable.^[20]

The concept of "Greater Serbia" was put in practice during the early 1920s, under the Yugoslav premiership of Nikola Pašić. Using tactics of police intimidation and vote rigging,^[21] he diminished the role of the oppositions (mainly those loyal to his Croatian rival, Stjepan Radić) to his government in parliament,^[22] creating an environment to centralization of power in the hands of the Serbs in general and Serbian politicians in particular.^[23]

During the World War II, the Serbian royalist Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland headed by General Draža Mihailović attempted to define its vision of a postwar future. One of its intellectuals was the Bosnian Serb nationalist Stevan Moljević who, in 1941, proposed in a paper entitled "Homogenous Serbia" that an even larger Greater Serbia should be created, incorporating not only Bosnia and much of Croatia but also chunks of Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and Hungary in areas where Serbs don't represent a significant minority. In the territories under their military control, Chetniks applied a policy of ethnic cleansing against ethnic Croats and Bosniaks.^[24][25][26]

The Serbs today have a primary and basic duty – to create and organize a homogeneous Serbia which must consist of the entire ethnic territory on which the Serbs live.^[27]

–Stevan Moljević, Homogenous Serbia

It was a point of discussion at a Chetnik congress held in village Ba in central Serbia in January 1944; however, Moljević's ideas were never put into practice due to the Chetniks' defeat by Josip Broz Tito's Partisans (a predominantly Serb movement which became multi-ethnic by this time) and it is difficult to assess how influential they were, due to the lack of records from the Ba congress. Nonetheless, Moljević's core idea—that Serbia is defined by the pattern of Serb settlement, irrespective of existing national borders—was to remain an underlying theme of the Greater Serbian ideal.

Mall:Main article

The modern elaboration of Serbs' grievances and allegation of inequality in Yugoslavia was to be developed in the Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (1986), which was the single most important document to set into motion the pan-Serbian movement of the late 1980s which led to Slobodan Milošević's rise to power and the subsequent Yugoslav wars. The authors of the Memorandum included the most influential Serbian intellectuals, among them: Pavle Ivić, Antonije Isaković, Dušan Kanazir, Mihailo Marković, Miloš Macura, Dejan Medaković, Miroslav Pantić, Nikola Pantić, Ljubiša Rakić, Radovan Samardžić, Miomir Vukobratović, Vasilije Krestić, Ivan Maksimović, Kosta Mihailović, Stojan Čelić and Nikola Čobelić. Christopher Bennett, author of Yugoslavia's Bloody Collapse: Causes, Course and Consequences, characterized the memorandum as "an elaborate, if crude, conspiracy theory."^[28]:81 The memorandum alleged systematic discrimination against Serbs and Serbia culminating with the allegation that the Serbs of Kosovo and Metohija were being subjected to genocide. According to Bennett, despite most of these claims being obviously absurd, the memorandum was merely one of several similar polemics published at the time.^[28]:81

The Memorandum's central theses are:^{[källa behövs]}

• Yugoslavia is a Croatian-Slovene hegemony, in order to reduce the Serbs to a smaller representative group, or "power-sharing".
• Serbs are, in Yugoslavia, oppressed as a nation. This oppression is especially brutal in Serbian Autonomous Province of Kossovo-Metochia, and in Croatia, where their status is "the worst ever as far as recorded history goes".
• Serbia is economically exploited, being subjected to the political-economical mechanisms that drain much of her wealth and redistribute it to Slovenia, Croatia and Kosovo-Metohija.
• borders between Yugoslav republics are arbitrary, drawn by dominant Croatian and Slovene communists (motivated, supposedly, by anti-Serbian animus) and their Serbian political lapdogs.

The Memorandum's defenders claims go as follows: far from calling for a breakup of Yugoslavia on Greater Serbian lines claimed to be in favor of Yugoslavia. Its support for Yugoslavia was however conditional on fundamental changes to end what the Memorandum argued was the discrimination against Serbia which was inbuilt into the Yugoslav constitution. The chief of these changes was abolition of the autonomy of Kosovo and Vojvodina. According to Norman Cigar, because the changes were unlikely to be accepted passively, the implementation of the Memorandum's program would only be possible by force.^[29]:24

Mall:Main article

With the rise to power of Milošević the Memorandum's discourse became mainstream in Serbia. According to Bennett, Milošević used a rigid control of the media to organize a propaganda campaign in which the Serbs were the victims and stressed the need to readjust Yugoslavia due to the alleged bias against Serbia. This was then followed by Milošević's anti-bureaucratic revolution in which the provincial governments of Vojvodina and Kosovo and the Republican government of Montenegro, were overthrown giving Milošević the dominating position of four votes out of eight in Yugoslavia's collective presidency. Milošević had achieved such a dominant position for Serbia because, according to Bennett, the old communist authorities had failed to stand up to him. During August 1988, supporters of the Anti-Bureaucratic Revolution were reported to have shouted Greater Serbia themed chants of "Montenegro is Serbia!".^[30]

Croatia and Slovenia denounced the demands by Milošević for a more centralized system of government in Yugoslavia and they began to demand that Yugoslavia be made a full multi-party confederal state.^[31] Milošević claimed that he opposed a confederal system but also declared that should a confederal system be created, the external borders of Serbia would be an "open question", insinuating that his government would pursue creating a Greater Serbia if Yugoslavia was decentralized.^[32]

Major changes took place in Yugoslavia in 1990 when free elections brought opposition parties to power in Croatia and Slovenia.^[28]

By this point several opposition parties in Serbia were openly calling for a Greater Serbia, rejecting the then existing boundaries of the Republics as the artificial creation of Tito's partisans. These included Šešelj's Serbian Radical Party, claiming that the recent changes had rectified most of the anti-Serb bias that the Memorandum had alleged. Milošević supported the groups calling for a Greater Serbia, insisting on the demand for "all Serbs in one state". The Socialist Party of Serbia appeared to be defenders of the Serb people in Yugoslavia. Serbian president Slobodan Milošević, who was also the leader of the Socialist Party of Serbia, repeatedly stated that all Serbs should enjoy the right to be included in Serbia.^[33] Opponents and critics of Milošević claimed that "Yugoslavia could be that one state but the threat was that, should Yugoslavia break up, then Serbia under Milošević would carve out a Greater Serbia".^[34]:19

In 1990, power had seeped away from the federal government to the republics and were deadlocked over the future of Yugoslavia with the Slovene and Croatian republics seeking a confederacy and Serbia a stronger federation. Gow states, "it was the behavior of Serbia that added to the Croatian and Slovene Republic's belief that no accommodation was possible with the Serbian Republic's leadership". The last straw was on 15 May 1991 when the outgoing Serb president of the collective presidency along with the Serb satellites on the presidency blocked the succession of the Croatian representative Stjepan Mesić as president. According to Gow, from this point on Yugoslavia de facto "ceased to function".^[34]:20

The Virovitica–Karlovac–Karlobag line is a hypothetical boundary that describes the western extent of an irredentist nationalist Serbian state.^[35] It defines everything east of this line, Karlobag–Ogulin–Karlovac–Virovitica, as a part of Serbia, while the west of it would be within Slovenia, and all which might remain of Croatia. Such a boundary would give the majority of the territory of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the Serbs.

This line was frequently referenced by Serbian politician Vojislav Šešelj.^[36][37] The line is based on the failed 1915 Treaty of London.^{[källa behövs]}

A greater Serbian state was supported for national and economical reasons, as it would give Serbia a large coastline, heavy industries, agricultural farmland, natural resources and all of the crude oil (mostly found in the Pannonian Plain), particularly in the Socialist Republic of Croatia, by various Serbian politicians associated with Slobodan Milošević in the early 1990s who publicly espoused such views: Mihalj Kertes, Milan Babić, Milan Martić, Vojislav Šešelj, Stevan Mirković.^[38]

Also, it would gather over 98% of Serbs of Yugoslavia in one state. In his speeches and books, Šešelj claimed that all of the population of these areas are in fact ethnic Serbs, of Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Muslim faith. However, outside of Šešelj's Serbian Radical Party, the line as such was never promoted in recent Serbian political life.

Mall:Main article

Milošević believes he now has the historic opportunity to, once and for all, settle accounts with the Croats and do what Serbian politicians after World War I did not – rally all Serbs in one Serbian state.^[33]

–Belgrade newspaper Borba, August 1991.

During the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, the concept of a Greater Serbia was widely seen outside of Serbia as the motivating force for the military campaigns undertaken to form and sustain Serbian states on the territories of the breakaway Yugoslav republics of Croatia (the Republic of Serbian Krajina) and Bosnia and Herzegovina (the Republika Srpska).^[39] From the Serb point of view, the objective of this policy was to assure Serbs' rights by ensuring that they could never be subjected to potentially hostile rule, particularly by their historic Croatian enemies (cf. Ustaše).^{[källa behövs]}

The war crimes charges against Milošević are based on the allegation that he sought the establishment of a "Greater Serbia". Prosecutors at the Hague argued that "the indictments were all part of a common scheme, strategy or plan on the part of the accused [Milošević] to create a 'Greater Serbia', a centralized Serbian state encompassing the Serb-populated areas of Croatia and Bosnia and all of Kosovo, and that this plan was to be achieved by forcibly removing non-Serbs from large geographical areas through the commission of the crimes charged in the indictments. Although the events in Kosovo were separated from those in Croatia and Bosnia by more than three years, they were no more than a continuation of that plan, and they could only be understood completely by reference to what had happened in Croatia and Bosnia."^[39]

The Hague Trial Chamber found that the strategic plan of the Bosnian Serb leadership consisted of "a plan to link Serb-populated areas in BiH together, to gain control over these areas and to create a separate Bosnian Serb state, from which most non-Serbs would be permanently removed".^[40] It also found that media in certain areas focused only on Serb Democratic Party policy and reports from Belgrade became more prominent, including the presentation of extremist views and promotion of the concept of a Greater Serbia, just as in other parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina the concept of a Greater Croatia was openly advocated.^[41]

The concept of a Greater Serbia has been widely criticised by other nations in the former Yugoslavia as well as by foreign observers. The two principal objections have been:

• Questionable historical justifications for claims to territory; for instance, during the Croatian War of Independence, Dubrovnik and other parts of Dalmatia were claimed as a historically Serbian territory — claims which were opposed by Croatian authorities, and by high-profile international governments.^{[källa behövs]}
• The coercive nature of creating a Greater Serbian state against the will of other nations; before the wars, the peoples of Yugoslavia were highly intermingled and it was physically impossible to create ethnic states without taking in large numbers of other ethnic groups against their will. An answer to this was the widespread use of ethnic cleansing to ensure that mono-ethnic territories could be established without opposition from potentially disloyal minority groups. A converse argument is used against the upgrading the status of Croatia and of Bosnia and Herzegovina from republics to independent states—taking in large numbers of other ethnic groups against their will in the process.^{[källa behövs]}

Vuk Draskovic, leader of the Serbian Renewal Movement, called for the creation of a Greater Serbia which would include Serbia, Kosovo, Vojvodina, Macedonia and Montenegro, as well as regions within Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia with high concentrations of Serbs.^[33] Jovan Marjanovic of the Serbian Renewal Movement asked that "the Yugoslav Army must come into Croatia and occupy the line Benkovac–Karlovac–Pakrac–Baranja".^[42] About 160,000 Croats were expelled from territories Serbian forces sought to control.^[43]

Much of the fighting in the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s was the result of an attempt to keep Serbs unified. Mihajlo Markovic, the Vice President of the Main Committee of Serbia's Socialist Party, rejected any solution that would make Serbs outside Serbia a minority. He proposed establishing a federation consisting of Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Serbs residing in the Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina, Slavonia, Baranja, and Srem.^[33]

Mall:Main article

The military defeat of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, the creation of the Republika Srpska within a sovereign Bosnia, the UN Administration of Kosovo, the retreat of Serbs from their formerly controlled territories in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo and the indictment of some Serbian leaders for war crimes have greatly discredited the Greater Serbian ideal in Serbia as well as abroad. Western countries claim that atrocities of the Yugoslav Wars have prompted them to take a much stronger stance against the Greater Serbian goal.^{[källa behövs]}

So I say: if a Greater Serbia should be held by committing crime, I would never accept it; may Greater Serbia disappear, but to hold it by crime – no. If it were necessary to hold only a small Serbia by crime, I would not accept it. May small Serbia disappear, but to hold it by crime – no. And if there is only one Serb, and if I am that last Serb, to hold on by crime – I do not accept. May we disappear, but disappear as humans, because then we will not disappear, we will be alive in the hands of the living God.^[44]

–Serbian Patriarch Pavle

Slobodan Milošević and many other Serb leaders were accused by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) of crimes against humanity including murder, forcible population transfer, deportation and "persecution on political, racial or religious grounds". Tribunal prosecutor's office has accused Milosevic of "the gravest violations of human rights in Europe since the Second World War and genocide."^[43] Milošević died in prison before sentencing.

However, the idea of a Greater Serbia is still seen by many Croats, Bosniaks, and Albanians as a barrier to good relations and unity between Serbs and other neighbouring peoples.^[45]

In 2008, Aleksandar Vučić, a former member of the Serbian Radical Party, which advocated for a Greater Serbia, declared that the Greater Serbian project was unrealistic.^[46]

Currently, there is a movement calling for the unification of Republika Srpska with Serbia.The Bosniaks and Croats see this as an act of breaking the Dayton Agreement, while Serbs see it as an example of self-determination.^[47]

• Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia
• Anti-Serb sentiment
• Serbian war crimes (disambiguation)