Liberation of Belgrade?

[RED DAWN]

Belgrade was the primate city of Yugoslavia, today still being the capital city of Serbia.

The communist bandits killed about 30,000 citizens of Belgrade after the “liberation” of that city, that is after October 20, 1944.

The position of Serbs was defined by Tito when he came to Belgrade in 1944 and said: “Serbia is an occupied, conquered country now and it must be treated that way.”

One of the most serious communist crimes during the Second World War against the Serbian people was the death of about 180,000 young Serbs in just two months of fighting on the Syrmian Front from February to April 1945, just before the end of the war. Namely, as soon as Tito arrived in Belgrade on Soviet tanks in 1944, he ordered the mobilization of all young men from the age of 17 onwards throughout Serbia and sent them only with infantry weapons, completely inexperienced and without proper training to fight. In two months of that criminal action of the communist leadership, out of about 250 thousand young Serbs who arrived at the front, about 180 thousand were killed only in two months, and without many people even knowing about their graves, Tito left them in the mud.

OZNA (communist) Major Milan Tresnjic testified that about 800 civilians were killed in the district he commanded, Belgrade had 16 districts at that time.

Тhe great repression of the communists against all sympathizers of the Serbian monarchy also began, which led to the appearance of the “Pasija Groblja”. Tens of thousands of Serbs were arrested and shot without trial or verdict, and among them were many intellectuals.

For decades, the Yugoslav secret police OZNA, later known as the UDB, persecuted and even killed anyone who would speak publicly about crimes against Serbs, either the crimes committed during the First World War or during the Second.

The fate of the Serbian hero, Duke Petar Bojović, depicts the communist occupation of Belgrade. Namely, on November 1, 1918, Duke Bojović liberated the Serbian capital with the Serbian army, and after the communist capture of the city, in October 1944, Duke Bojović was detained and killed! After several days of horrific torture by members of the criminal “OZNA”, he passed away at the age of 83. With their attitude towards the great heroes of the First World War, such as Major Gavrilović or Duke Bojović, they proved that they did not come as liberators, but as new occupiers and enemies of the Serbian people.

And of course, the new communist government banned anyone from attending the funeral of Duke Petar Bojović. Moreover, no one attended the funeral except for his closest family, without the duke’s son Dobrica, who defended his father during the intrusion into their house and the beating of Duke Bojović and was therefore sentenced to 10 years in prison. Just before the funeral, OZNA announced on Radio Belgrade that if any of the citizens of Belgrade tried to come to the funeral of Duke Bojović at the New Cemetery, he would be arrested and prosecuted. The Bolshevik bandits in leather coats, who personally supervised the modest family funeral, took care of that. They did not allow the admirers of his heroic deeds to approach the grave and pay their respects. After his death, his family was subjected to the most severe humiliation.

The Germans, when they took over Belgrade in 1941, did not even touch the duke, although he walked defiantly in his garden dressed in a ceremonial ducal uniform. In this way, they showed respect for this famous warrior and their opponent from the First World War. However, Broz’s bandits were bothered by Duke Bojović, which showed their anti-Serbian spirit.

Sadly, Belgrade was not the only Serbian city that perished this much under the communist regime.

https://www.deathofcommunism.com/liberation-of-belgrade/

_
I wonder what you think the liberation of Serbia would look like? I'll go over three observations quickly to give context
_
1. 33%~ of the population are fanatic eastern orthodox christians, many of which not only know the churches are affiliated with very powerful and dangerous criminal organizations, but actually support it. :lol:

2. 33%~ support the Serbian Progressive Party and their agenda of joining the European union, which is bad for Serbia if you didn't already know that

3. 33%~ are considered "neutral"

At least that's what I've heard personally.
_
In context of "liberating Serbia", Serbia is caught in a difficult position. If they bring themselves closer to Russia, their corrupt religious groups would prosper (same religion, likely same criminal organizations as Russia). If Serbia joins the EU, Russia will surely be vindictive and punish Serbia with sanctions (confirmed recently). Serbia is already poor and many work ridiculous hours for a slave's income just to feed themselves and their family, let alone actually make progress in their lives financially (government lied about the average income in order to qualify for EU)- as a result of money laundering and tax fraud conducted by the churches primarily.
_
1) Vladimir Putin isn't a christian, he's very likely an atheist as he was KGB during the USSR. There are logical reasons why he would allow the Eastern Orthodox Church to prosper in Russia, but surely this wasn't his first choice and would do so restrictively. Upon Putin's retirement or death, it's considered likely that a new president would be elected without these restraints in place. Allowing Eastern Orthodox Church and their affiliated criminal organizations to prosper in Russia enforces a sense of traditionalism which maintains state cohesion within Russia and countries previously part of USSR (including Serbia as a part of Yugoslavia who had good relations with the USSR, while Serbia had remained friendly towards Russia until the current government began idolizing western powers)

2) If Serbia joins or pisses of the European Union in their current economic state, they will be heavily sanctioned without any clear solution. The current government is being pressured to denounce Russia, especially after Russia's attack on Ukraine. Joining the EU would at least partially dissolve religious criminal organizations, but at the cost of deluding Serbia's general cultural values. Serbia would likely be an "awkward" EU member like their northern neighbor Hungary, that is if EU ever permits them to join (it's possible they wont, of course). This isn't the worst option but certainly not a good one, which is why Serb would very likely fall westward if they were forced out of neutrality.

3) There is some portion of citizens who understand maintaining political neutrality is the best current position for Serbia while also not having fanatic religious beliefs, but most Serbs certainly have either preferences for Russia or EU (can be seen by their previous election, Pro-EU remains dominant). This hard to determine portion of the population is the only chance for an actual "liberation" of Serbia, which would be for Serbia to create a fully independent identity, remove religious corruption (or religion entirely) and become economically sustainable.
_
You're likely one of the younger generations of Serbians that has consumed western propaganda regarding Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia wasn't perfect, but it was the most prosperous government of the Balkan States. When USA "humanely" bombed Yugoslavia, they destroyed schools and hospital too, killing plenty of young and old civilians. When they were done, the radiation made many people get cancer- you can ask people about it today, this wasn't that long ago. Also, the Germans hated Serbians for both being communist at the time, orchestrating the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand AND starting WW1.
_
With everything in consideration, I'd most definitely be interested in knowing what you'd personally consider the "liberation of Serbia". Is the liberation of Serbia conforming to your personal ideals or the prosperity Serbians experience?

 

[RED DAWN]

There was polls done recently in Serbia

"Entrance to the EU: against 36%, neutral 29%, for 28%

Going away from EU and making a pact with Russia; yes 40%, against 26%, neutral 24%

Who’s responsible for war in Ukraine: murica 42%, nato 22%, Russia 11%, Ukraine 5%

Relations in regards to Ukraine; neutral 51%, against sanctions to Russia even if it means not joining EU 32%, for sanctions 9%"

This is good news, it shows the Serbian population has a preference towards neutrality. Entrance to EU was within the range we expected.

 

[88HungarianSatanicWarrior666]

Belgrade was the primate city of Yugoslavia, today still being the capital city of Serbia.

What you forgot,that before Treaty of Trianon that it was a Hungarian city(under the Hungarian name:Nándorfehérvár),where Szilágyi Mihály was also the castle captain.

I don't want to be clever,I just want to highlight Hungarianness,it was only a Hungarian city and a large part of Serbia was also Hungarian Land.

Otherwise good topic and not a bad thought.

 

[88HungarianSatanicWarrior666]

This please be sure to check it out,if who can speak Hungarian or English,because it is very related to this video the subject for this the topic.

About the person who made the video:
Lords of Covid World Order - exposing video
My signature:In the interests of Hungary.

 

[Serbon]

The discussion about who came first where is endless.

The biggest mistake of us both was to start fighting after 500 years of helping each other and fighting together against the ottomans.

 

[Serbon]

The discussion about who came first where is endless.

The biggest mistake of us both was to start fighting after 500 years of helping each other and fighting together against the ottomans.

Serbs considering themselves superior to other nations. They insisted on landing in the Adriatic Sea.
Their Adriatic insistence led to the breakdown of the Balkan alliance, forcing them to fight other Slavs from the same tribe. As a result, the Balkan nations turned their backs on the Serbs.

Well no, that wasn't the reason for the Second Balkan War. And what's wrong with claims on the coast of the Adriatic Sea? Montenegro was majority Serbian, their kings were Serbs, Njegos called himself a Serb in Gorski Vijenac, Montenegrin kingdom had literally Serbian tricolor flag as their own flag. Montenegrins and Serbs are just like Austrians and Germans, no difference. Not to mention the Serbs from Shkoder, Dalmatia, etc.. All of those lands were coast of Adriatic Sea

 

[88HungarianSatanicWarrior666]

My signature:In the interests of Hungary.

Excuse me.
I wanted to write this:My Signature:Hungary through Satanic eye's

 

[88HungarianSatanicWarrior666]

This please be sure to check it out,if who can speak Hungarian or English,because it is very related to this video the subject for this the topic.

About the person who made the video:
Lords of Covid World Order - exposing video
My signature:Hungary through Satanic eyes

The video to watch

 

[88HungarianSatanicWarrior666]

the indigenous people of Belgrade are Serbs. Belgrade is Serbian.

I said before Yugoslavia that it was Hungarian,not that the Hungarian's were the indigenous people.
As a matter of fact,we have conquered Nándorfehérvár(Belgrade),which was only ended by Trianon,because we lost the first world war together with the Germans(where Hitler was involved{if I remember correctly he was a corporal}).

Belgrade was the primate city of Yugoslavia, today still being the capital city of Serbia.

 

[Anatolian Division]

the indigenous people of Belgrade are Serbs. Belgrade is Serbian.

I said before Yugoslavia that it was Hungarian,not that the Hungarian's were the indigenous people.
As a matter of fact,we have conquered Nándorfehérvár(Belgrade),which was only ended by Trianon,because we lost the first world war together with the Germans(where Hitler was involved{if I remember correctly he was a corporal}).

Belgrade was the primate city of Yugoslavia, today still being the capital city of Serbia.

İn nation states, "which city belongs to where" is determined by the majority living in the city. Not by conquering. Jugo slavia is successor of Serbian kingdom. It's kings, queens and military are Serbian.

 

[Serbon]

Serbs considering themselves superior to other nations. They insisted on landing in the Adriatic Sea.
Their Adriatic insistence led to the breakdown of the Balkan alliance, forcing them to fight other Slavs from the same tribe. As a result, the Balkan nations turned their backs on the Serbs.

Well no, that wasn't the reason for the Second Balkan War. And what's wrong with claims on the coast of the Adriatic Sea? Montenegro was majority Serbian, their kings were Serbs, Njegos called himself a Serb in Gorski Vijenac, Montenegrin kingdom had literally Serbian tricolor flag as their own flag. Montenegrins and Serbs are just like Austrians and Germans, no difference. Not to mention the Serbs from Shkoder, Dalmatia, etc.. All of those lands were coast of Adriatic Sea

I didn't mean second balkan war. It's general reason why other balkan people turned against Serbians.

However, in first and second balkan war Bulgarian and Serbian officers hated each other. They couldn't share Danube even.

It's not that simple, conflicts between countries are complex things, it can't be explained in 2 sentences.
In the first Balkan war Bulgarians and Serbs fought together, not against each other.

 

[Serbon]

the indigenous people of Belgrade are Serbs. Belgrade is Serbian.

I said before Yugoslavia that it was Hungarian,not that the Hungarian's were the indigenous people.
As a matter of fact,we have conquered Nándorfehérvár(Belgrade),which was only ended by Trianon,because we lost the first world war together with the Germans(where Hitler was involved{if I remember correctly he was a corporal}).

Belgrade was the primate city of Yugoslavia, today still being the capital city of Serbia.

Belgrade was not part of Hungary before Trianon Treaty. It was capital of Serbia even before WW1 and much before

 

[Anatolian Division]

Well no, that wasn't the reason for the Second Balkan War. And what's wrong with claims on the coast of the Adriatic Sea? Montenegro was majority Serbian, their kings were Serbs, Njegos called himself a Serb in Gorski Vijenac, Montenegrin kingdom had literally Serbian tricolor flag as their own flag. Montenegrins and Serbs are just like Austrians and Germans, no difference. Not to mention the Serbs from Shkoder, Dalmatia, etc.. All of those lands were coast of Adriatic Sea

I didn't mean second balkan war. It's general reason why other balkan people turned against Serbians.

However, in first and second balkan war Bulgarian and Serbian officers hated each other. They couldn't share Danube even.

It's not that simple, conflicts between countries are complex things, it can't be explained in 2 sentences.
In the first Balkan war Bulgarians and Serbs fought together, not against each other.

I am not writing an article, I am explaining the main and main reasons as far as I know. I am a history student, nice to meet you.

You want this.

İn first balkan war, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro was allies but in their own they were fighting. That's why after the battle of Kumonovo Serbs advances are stopped because of their left wing (Vidin area) was in the borders of Bulgaria. This was their officers fighting reason. Balkan allience was like quarrelsome family members. They couldn't do side-kick maneuver. They couldn't do strike in a narrow field. So Serbs turned their faces against Adriatic sea. But Greece and christian Albanians worried about this. Because that means a threat for them (If you know geography I don't explain this). Greece gave many casulties for fall of Yanya because Greeks wanted to reach Albania and Adriatic before Serbians do.

Thank you.

 

[Serbon]

I didn't mean second balkan war. It's general reason why other balkan people turned against Serbians.

However, in first and second balkan war Bulgarian and Serbian officers hated each other. They couldn't share Danube even.

It's not that simple, conflicts between countries are complex things, it can't be explained in 2 sentences.
In the first Balkan war Bulgarians and Serbs fought together, not against each other.

I am not writing an article, I am explaining the main and main reasons as far as I know. I am a history student, nice to meet you.

You want this.

İn first balkan war, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro was allies but in their own they were fighting. That's why after the battle of Kumonovo Serbs advances are stopped because of their left wing (Vidin area) was in the borders of Bulgaria. This was their officers fighting reason. Balkan allience was like quarrelsome family members. They couldn't do side-kick maneuver. They couldn't do strike in a narrow field. So Serbs turned their faces against Adriatic sea. But Greece and christian Albanians worried about this. Because that means a threat for them (If you know geography I don't explain this). Greece gave many casulties for fall of Yanya because Greeks wanted to reach Albania and Adriatic before Serbians do.

Thank you.

Not truth, take the battle of Jedrene as an example of Bulgarian troops and Serbian troops fighting together on the most eastern part of the front, it had nothing to do with Serbia, but we sent them troops to help in Jedrene

 

[88HungarianSatanicWarrior666]

the indigenous people of Belgrade are Serbs. Belgrade is Serbian.

I said before Yugoslavia that it was Hungarian,not that the Hungarian's were the indigenous people.
As a matter of fact,we have conquered Nándorfehérvár(Belgrade),which was only ended by Trianon,because we lost the first world war together with the Germans(where Hitler was involved{if I remember correctly he was a corporal}).

Belgrade was the primate city of Yugoslavia, today still being the capital city of Serbia.

İn nation states, "which city belongs to where" is determined by the majority living in the city. Not by conquering. Jugo slavia is successor of Serbian kingdom. It's kings, queens and military are Serbian.

If this is the case,then definitely it can be said that:Hungarian highland is no Slovakia,Transylvania(Erdély) is no Romania and all the others lost Hungarian territory(Land) is not of strangers!!.Especially that were not taken from us by conquest,but simply gave them the Hungarian land(courtesy of Trianon).In addition still all the time predominantly inhabited by Hungarians the old Hungarian territory.

Well done.I accept Nándorfehérvár(Belgrade) Serbian origin,but the Hungarians still owned it and undeniably we had something to do with it!
Especially after these:The city and its castle were besieged on several occasions. Between 4 and 22 July 1456, at the Battle of Nándorfehérvár(Belgrade), Mihály Szilágyi and János Hunyadi won an important victory over the besieging army of Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, setting back the expansion of Turkish power in the Balkans for several decades.
This is Hungarian glory.

 

[88HungarianSatanicWarrior666]

the indigenous people of Belgrade are Serbs. Belgrade is Serbian.

I said before Yugoslavia that it was Hungarian,not that the Hungarian's were the indigenous people.
As a matter of fact,we have conquered Nándorfehérvár(Belgrade),which was only ended by Trianon,because we lost the first world war together with the Germans(where Hitler was involved{if I remember correctly he was a corporal}).

Belgrade was the primate city of Yugoslavia, today still being the capital city of Serbia.

Belgrade was not part of Hungary before Trianon Treaty. It was capital of Serbia even before WW1 and much before

Excuse me.I knew it wrong. :? :roll:
Only came under Hungarian sovereignty From 1427(under the jurisdiction of[not as part of Hungary]).It regained this status in 1841, but the Turks did not actually leave until 1867. In the 20th century it became the capital of Yugoslavia, which underwent many changes, until 2006, when Serbia became an independent state again.
So was Serbian before Trianon.
But the Hungarians are undeniably linked to Nándorfehérvár(Belgrade)!Especially after the stories of Mihály Szilágyi and János Hunyadi.

 

[Anatolian Division]

I said before Yugoslavia that it was Hungarian,not that the Hungarian's were the indigenous people.
As a matter of fact,we have conquered Nándorfehérvár(Belgrade),which was only ended by Trianon,because we lost the first world war together with the Germans(where Hitler was involved{if I remember correctly he was a corporal}).

İn nation states, "which city belongs to where" is determined by the majority living in the city. Not by conquering. Jugo slavia is successor of Serbian kingdom. It's kings, queens and military are Serbian.

If this is the case,then definitely it can be said that:Hungarian highland is no Slovakia,Transylvania(Erdély) is no Romania and all the others lost Hungarian territory(Land) is not of strangers!!.Especially that were not taken from us by conquest,but simply gave them the Hungarian land(courtesy of Trianon).In addition still all the time predominantly inhabited by Hungarians the old Hungarian territory.

Well done.I accept Nándorfehérvár(Belgrade) Serbian origin,but the Hungarians still owned it and undeniably we had something to do with it!
Especially after these:The city and its castle were besieged on several occasions. Between 4 and 22 July 1456, at the Battle of Nándorfehérvár(Belgrade), Mihály Szilágyi and János Hunyadi won an important victory over the besieging army of Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, setting back the expansion of Turkish power in the Balkans for several decades.
This is Hungarian glory.

our victories cost 2 pages full. but instead of boasting about them, we prefer to continue the victories that our ancestors achieved on horseback in the field of science and art. as we were taught.

I like Miklos Zrinyi and his Szigetvar in Hungarian history. He was very courage commander. We are very respectful to him even in Turkey. Yanos was defeated in Second battle of Kosovo, Zrinyi died but not defeated.

I am leaving by Cemal Reşit Rey with Budapest Symphony Orchestra's symphonic poem.

https://youtu.be/QQoC9elnGZw

Thank you.

 

[88HungarianSatanicWarrior666]

Yes I am Turkish.

I could have figured that out your signature and location,that you are a Turk.But as I wrote down the answer,only after that I checked it out.
I could have been a little smarter. :lol: