Archduke Otto—The Smears
I am grateful to Dr. Trikovic for his reply to my response to his article defaming Archduke Otto since he thereby proves my case entirely.
Not one of the challenges to his sources is he able to gainsay or rebut.
The most he can do is claim some sort of generalised misinterpretation of his position.
There is but one exception: He clarifies that he was referring to Dr. Ceric as the one who “counts among his international activities participation in radical Islamic groups and events, as well as links with Muslim activists banned from the US for terrorist funding and phony Islamic charities tainted by terrorist links.”
But he cannot deny that the links he pointed us to, simply don't exist.
Indeed, he cannot deny that his “sources” simply did not prove any of his claims against Archduke Otto.
Clearly, an apology is due from Dr. Trifkovic for his unworthy smear of Archduke Otto.
Instead, we get more of the same.
Since Habsburg’s support of the Muslim side in the Bosnian war is uncontentious . . .
Not an ounce of evidence does Dr. Trifkovic produce for this claim. Meeting Alija Izetbegovic is certainly not proof that Archduke Otto was “an enthusiastic supporter of the Jihadist side.” Yet, despite the opportunity to provide proper evidence of the claim, Dr. Trifkovic produces none.
Well, Dr. T? Where is your evidence? Well, sir? Where is it?
Once again—nothing, nix, nil.
Instead he tells that “since . . . it is uncontentious.”
Uncontentious? Is this a jest?
Of course the claim is highly contentious!
Archduke Otto was a proponent of the peaceful co-existence of all members of the three great monotheistic religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
He was under no illusion that such an aim is very difficult to achieve in the Balkans but he nevertheless regarded it as a worthy aim—and rightly so.
Thus—the claim that he was “an enthusiastic supporter of the jihadist side” was, is and remains exactly what I claimed it was: ludicrous. More so—it is offensively ludicrous.
Regarding those Eastern Orthodox clerics [“Wrong! Not only were they invited, but they attended . . . ”], being invited to attend a funeral is rather distinct from being invited to read homilies and say prayers. No Orthodox cleric was awarded such honor . . .
Still wrong.
Let us remember what Dr. Trifkovic said in his initial article: “No orthodox Christians were invited.”
He does not deny that this statement was simply wrong.
Instead, he now says that no Orthodox cleric was “awarded the honour of reading a homily or saying a prayer.”
And why, may we suppose, did they not do so?
The answer is simple: Most Orthodox clergy themselves refuse so to do!
But now the Orthodox clergy's declining to read or pray gets twisted by Dr. Trifkovic into blame of the funeral organisers for not pressing them so to do.
The funeral organisers did not press them precisely because they respected the Orthodox clergy's wishes.
Thus, the original statement was simply false. It would be wiser for Dr. Trifkovic simply to admit that he made a mistake and leave it at that.
Moreover, the willingness of Bosnia’s Reis-ul-Ulema Mustafa effendi Cerić to read a prayer is a strong indication that he is a more moderate Muslim since extreme Muslims would decline such an invitation.
Bogle’s defense of Cerić
I did not defend Dr Ceric. I defended Archduke Otto and his good name.
and his categorical denial of the latter’s extremist proclivities and connections [“Nothing. Err . . . at all. Yep. Nix. Not one little reference at all!”]
No, I did not deny this, and certainly not categorically.
What I said was that Dr. Trifkovic had provided no evidence—nothing at all—for his claim.
I accept that Dr. Trifkovic was talking about Ceric and not Archduke Otto but, even so, he produced no evidence for his claims.
Still less has he produced evidence for his claims about Archduke Otto, and it was Archduke Otto whom I was defending.
The record of the late Archduke’s favorite mufti is long and unpleasant.
Dr. Trifkovic also produces no evidence for his claim that Dr Ceric was the Archduke's favourite mufti.
As to his “long and unpleasant” record, this was peripheral to my response.
But, since he raises it, I have looked, once again, at his sources and, once again, they are very far from being proof of Dr. Trifkovic's assertions.
The quotes from Dr. Ceric are little more than the kind of comments that one would expect from any Muslim mufti, moderate or otherwise.
Of course Christians will not agree with those sentiments, but it is of the essence of peaceful co-existence, whether as championed by Archduke Otto, or any other kind, that one learns how to live in the same country with others whose beliefs one does not share.
That was the policy of the Habsburg empire, just as it was of the Pontifical States and of other European countries. Austria recognised minority races and religions (including Jews and Muslims) as having all the constitutional rights of the Emperor's subjects. Papal Rome is one of the cities in Europe from which the Jews were never expelled.
The mere wish to implement sharia law is not, of itself, evidence of extremism, since, once again, almost all Muslims believe it should be implemented when Muslims are in the majority.
The real test of extremism consists in what is to be included under the rubric of sharia law.
In Britain, the Roman Catholic King James II was ousted from his throne in 1688/9 because his Declaration of Indulgence would have established religious tolerance. Nonsensically, his Anglican Whig opponents accused him of “intolerance” for being tolerant.
Dr. Trifkovic seems to argue similarly.
Because Archduke Otto favoured peaceful co-existence, he is painted as being against peace and against co-existence.
It is absurd.
Almost two decades ago Cerić launched a campaign against mixed marriages and declared that children born to Muslim victims of rape were “easier to accept” than those born to Muslim women married to non-Muslim men.
This is extracted from Professor David Campbell's book National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity and Justice in Bosnia, an unfortunate choice for Dr. Trifkovic since the book details evidence of Serbian militia atrocities, mass murders, rapes and deportations during the Bosnian war.
The alleged quote, however, is not sourced in David Campbell's book.
What is sourced, however, by Professor Campbell is Dr. Ceric saying this:
“We are being killed because we want to live together. You see, we Bosnians are defending your principles in Europe. We are defending the principles of the United Nations and its Secretary-General—and he is the one breaking those principles. I ask you, is there anything left of humanity in the West? Is there anything left of justice and humanism?”
These are not words normally associated with a Muslim “jihadist.”
Last May Cerić openly threatened a “Sarajevo Sumer,” inspired by the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, unless grades from religion classes were included in students’ overall grade calculation.
What did he threaten?
Well, according to Dr. Trifkovic's source, Dr. Ceric threatened demonstrations in the streets inspired by the Middle Eastern “Arab spring” which demanded democracy. Dr. Ceric did this because religious (including, presumably, Christian) education was in danger of being excluded from student's grade assessments.
The article goes on to say (and Dr. Trifkovic carefully omits), this:
For his part, the head of Ceric's office said that the Islamic leader was 'emotional' when he gave his speech in Blagaj, and maintained that the call for protests was not a call for violence.
This, then, is a rather different thing from what Dr. Trifkovic would have us believe.
On interfaith dialogue, in which he has been inordinately active, to his co-religionists Cerić says that it is wrong to expect much from such forums: “Islam is the religion of God and it is the best way forward known to man. In it lies the salvation of humanity, dignity and all that is required for a creature to be classified as a human.”
What does Dr. Ceric actually say in the article? He says this:
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the principles of interfaith dialogue but they are a farce when conducted within a setting in which real power is in the hands of secularists who don't even believe in God. Under such circumstances interfaith dialogue becomes a tool through which the religious rights of one group—in most cases the Muslims—are slowly eroded. Muslims who want to meet with people of other faiths have every right to do so but it is wrong to accept much from such forums.
My advice is that everybody should stick to their faith and practise it and not attempt to deny others the right to do the same. People should also be honest and not allow themselves to be intoxicated by the occasion and give in to pressure to water down either their beliefs or what constitutes their basic interests.
If anybody decides to enter into any kind of dialogue my only advice then would be to do so as an equal and to be neither apologetic nor reactionary: Islam is the religion of God and it is the best way forward known to man. In it lies the salvation of humanity, dignity and all that is required for a creature to be classified as a human.
It is quite clear that he is not suggesting that non-Muslims are somehow “not fully human” or sub-human, as Dr. Trifkovic tendentiously suggests.
In the same article Dr. Ceric says this, too:
But—and Muslims need to know this as much as any other people—human beings also have duties and obligations to one another. We have to respect one another's right . . . A just and equitable Muslim would respect other individuals' rights in respect to each of these.
Muslim extremist fanatic? Well, maybe, but it is not immediately obvious from the article upon which Dr. Trifkovic so much relies.
A year later, in April 2010, Ceric led prayers at the funeral of Bosnian Army General Rasim Delic, convicted of war crimes against Serbs and Croats by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
This is a phenomenon seen in all three communities, Serb, Croat and Muslim, and it is frankly verging on the hypocritical for Serb or Croat nationalists to take issue here.
General Delic was sentenced to three years prison (and not for murder).
Dr. Trifkovic's friends and colleagues received much bigger sentences, e.g., Milomar Stakic, sentenced in July 2003 to life for extermination, murder , deportation, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and for his role as Prijedor mayor in the atrocities perpetrated against non-Serbs in the Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje concentration camps; and Biljana Plavsic, Radovan Karadzic's successor as Bosnian Serb President, sentenced to 11 years (which she accepted as just) for war crimes (to which she mostly pleaded guilty).
According to the court judgment, as mayor of Prijedor in northwest Bosnia during the 1992-95 Bosnian war, Milomir Stakic presided over more than 1,500 deaths and 20,000 deportations of Muslims and Croats, and organized detention camps where Serbian overseers killed, tortured, raped, and starved non-Serbs.
Dr. Trifkovic gave evidence for Stakic at his trial and served with Plavsic when she was a political leader.
The manner in which Kosovo became “independent and integrated” through NATO-supported KLA terrorism and criminality is familiar to most of our readers.
Through what medium is it familiar? Through the reporting of Dr. Trifkovic, I wonder?
The indisputable fact is that Kosovo was largely inhabited by Muslims, long before the war started. Some put the figure as high as 90% Muslim. It is not therefore surprising that some might take a different view of the Serbianisation of Kosovo, even if it was once an important part of Greater Serbia.
Whichever side one takes in the dispute, it was, is, and remains false to say that Archduke Otto supported terrorism, the KLA, the bombing of Belgrade, “visceral Serbophobia” or “outright mendacity.”
Denying the validity of an event or quote not because it is not true but because it is not hyperlinked, or the link is out of date, or the source not to the critic’s liking, smacks of desperate pedantry.
This is also an absurd objection. Dr. Trifkovic referred to these hyperlinked “quotes” as supporting evidence for his very serious accusations against the recently dead Archduke Otto.
It is hardly pedantry to point out that they simply do not exist!
Trying to make it sound like I am saying Hispanics in America are Muslim . . .
That, of course, is not what I said.
On the contrary, I pointed out that Hispanics in America tend to be Christian, as compared with the rising Muslim numbers in Europe. To criticise Archduke Otto for adverting to this fact was clearly otiose.
As to the use of colloquialisms, these are very commonly found on the pages of many respectable journals such as, for instance, The Spectator, and are a very common device in modern journalism. Anyone writing in journals must expect journalism.
On the remaining issues of alleged calling for the bombing of Belgrade, alleged support for the destruction of the Njegos chapel, alleged support for “Eurabia,” alleged “anti-Serb” and “viscerally anti-Orthodox” sentiments, alleged 32nd degree Freemasonry, alleged support for Chechnyan terrorists, and the thoroughly unpleasant reference to the Roman Catholic religion as “bigoted, schwarzgelb Christianity that cost Europe dearly in 1914,” there is not a word.
Putting the most benevolent and charitable construction upon such silence as I can, I take it to be a retraction of his smears. An apology would have been nice, but retraction will suffice.
Let me conclude by repeating that I, too, have some misgivings about the post-war tribunals and am concerned that Serbs and their leaders be treated justly and fairly. I hope I would wish the same for any member of the human race, even my enemies.
Far from being anti-Serb or anti-Orthodox, I have many Slavophile friends, as my very good friend, the late Yuri Miller, a descendant of the Princes Kurakin, a long-standing supporter of the Russian Union of Solidarists (NTS), and long a campaigner against Soviet Communism and for a free Russia, would have readily testified.
On the other hand, I do not think that any cause is well served by distortions, misinformation and smears against anyone, whether archduke or not, and I think it distasteful to be doing so particularly when his family are still in the first week of their mourning and bereavement.
After the Europe-wide revolutions of 1848, the Austrian Emperor set up the Voivodeship of Serbia and the Banat of Temeschwar which, in turn, reflected something of the former recognition of the autonomy that the Habsburg emperors had, in the past, given to Serbia.
The Emperor himself retained the title of Grand Voivod to emphasize the immediacy of Serbian autonomy within the Empire. Indeed, this title was again used at the funeral obsequies of Archduke Otto, as it had been for his mother, Empress Zita.
It was the nationalist chauvinism of the Hungarians that spelt the end of the Voivodeship, most of which was eventually incorporated into the Kingdom of Hungary and ruled directly by Hungary after the Historic Compromise (Maerische Ausgleich) of 1867, which was forced onto an unwilling emperor by Magyar nationalists.
However, the Emperor managed to keep respect for national differences in the Austrian part of the Empire with Article 19 of the new Constitution (Staatsgrundgesetz) which stated:
All races of the empire have equal rights, and every race has an inviolable right to the preservation and use of its own nationality and language. The equality of all customary languages [landesübliche Sprache] in school, office and public life, is recognized by the state. In those territories in which several races dwell, the public and educational institutions are to be so arranged that, without applying compulsion to learn a second country language [Landessprache], each of the races receives the necessary means of education in its own language.
The Hungarians went on to be a thorn in the side of the Empire and greatly assisted its fall. When it fell, the vacuum was filled by the evil that fanatical nationalism had fed and nurtured. The Magyars then felt the effect of their disloyalty when, first, Nazism, then Communism, overtook them and crushed them. Hungarian Jews famously suffered at the hand of the Nazi monster, Adolf Eichmann.
Hungary has largely learned the lesson that the yoke of Austria was far better than what came after. It is thus not surprising that the late Archduke Otto was enormously popular in that country.
The lesson of history is that narrow or fanatical nationalism is never likely to serve the twin aims of justice and peace. Indeed, it has often been the harbinger of the very opposite.
That is why there was a call for European unity after the war, but that, too, has now been diverted from its original path. It was that original path that had attracted Archduke Otto, not the secularising pastiche that now threatens the institutions of the EU.
The Austrian Empire was never perfect (what polity ever is?) but we might usefully study today just how it managed for so long to keep so many different ethnics groups together in relative peace, stability and harmony. Not for nothing was it said of Austria's growth through dynastic marriage alliances rather than than war, alii bella gerent, tu, O felix Austria, nubes —others make war but thou, O happy Austria, simply marry and make love.
Of one thing, however, we can be sure. Mud-slinging and false accusations against the late, erstwhile Crown Prince of that Empire will not achieve any good at all.
Entries(RSS)
Dr. Trifkovic's most important charge was that Archduke Otto was a 32nd degree freemason, which is counter to the timeless principles of Catholicism. Peaceful co-existence with false belief systems was never the goal of the saints, as Mr. Bogle as a historian knows full well. Peaceful co-existence with false beliefs systems is a principle of Scottish and York rite freemasonry, not the Church Militant.
On religious tolerance...
"Archduke Otto was a proponent of the peaceful co-existence of all members of the three great monotheistic religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam. He was under no illusion that such an aim is very difficult to achieve in the Balkans but he nevertheless regarded it as a worthy aim—and rightly so. Thus—the claim that he was “an enthusiastic supporter of the jihadist side” was, is and remains exactly what I claimed it was: ludicrous. More so—it is offensively ludicrous."
History suggests that such peaceful coexistence is possible only when one group is decisively dominant. History also suggests that, if this dominant group happens to be the Islamic party, even if Christians are pacified there is not much of a guarantee their Muslim neighbors will leave them be indefinitely (Constantinople, mid 20th-century, anyone?).
I do not know what the late Archduke's position was on the matter, but if he supported some kind of "self-determination" for Bosnian Muslims or Albanian Kosovars, then that was an extremely naïve stance at best as Islamic democracy is bound, sooner or later, to fall to the kind of sharia-laden populism presently sweeping North Africa and the Middle East. To contend that supporting self-determination for a Muslim people is tantamount to "supporting jihad" is VERY polemic, it is true, but at the same time it is pretty insightful as to what is likely to result from such support.
"The mere wish to implement sharia law is not, of itself, evidence of extremism, since, once again, almost all Muslims believe it should be implemented when Muslims are in the majority."
You have just illustrated the above point brilliantly. Thank you.
"The real test of extremism consists in what is to be included under the rubric of sharia law.
"In Britain, the Roman Catholic King James II was ousted from his throne in 1688/9 because his Declaration of Indulgence would have established religious tolerance. Nonsensically, his Anglican Whig opponents accused him of “intolerance” for being tolerant."
I don't see how the two cases are comparable. Ireland is about the only place in the Western world where there have been seriously bloody skirmishes between Catholics and Protestants along sectarian lines--and THAT was the fault of the mid-19th century Whigs (and probably of their Irish enabler MPs as well) who destroyed the Irish economy. In contrast, Islamic persecution of Christians of ANY confession is global and has continued uninterrupted from the death of Mohammed right down to the present day. History suggests sharia is ALWAYS bad news.
Both Mr. Bogle's posts, are logically inconsistent, too often incoherent, and too long. Mr. Bogle is clearly emotional about the departing of Dr. Hapsburg whom he held in great regard. And I don't wish to offend Mr. Bogle as regards Dr. Hapsburg of whose accomplishments and personal merits I know little, but I would like to make the following observations.
Let us suppose all the hyperlinks in the world don't work. As I understand it Mr. Bogle has already admitted or it is largely a matter of public fact that Dr. Hapsburg endorsed former KLA terrorists that now comprise Kosovo's "government", that he supported the Chechen "peace letters", and held Bosnian Muslim clerics in higher esteem than the Catholic Croat and Orthodox Serb variants from same said place.
Informed observers of Europe understand that extending any pleasantries to Thaci and the thugocracy in Pristina is tantamount to supporting murderous terrorism. Mr. Bogle informs us in this post that he disagrees with this chracaterization of the Albanian leadership. Fine, millions of others also believe in the veracity of the State Department releases that transformed these same men from one-time terrorists and mafia chieftans into freedom fighters and their criminal uprising and breach of Serbia's sovereignty into a legitimate secession.
Informed observers of Europe understand that the peace letter initiatives as regards Chechnya were neoconservative publicity stunts used to incite public backlashes and weaken Christian Russia in its struggle with violent terrorists for whom the first and only mission was violence and criminality and not discussions of local autonomy. But again Mr. Bogle seems to be swayed to the cause of these groups who murdered hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan. Again, millions of others swayed by the likes of the New York Times believe likewise, so there is nothing really to get too worked up over in this regard.
Informed observers know that the Muslim clerics of Bosnia became closely associated with the most virulent Saudi Wahabists, were instrumental in radicalizing their population, and upheld Dr. Alija Izetbegovic for whom the hyperlinks are irrelevant because his book regarding Islamic domination is public record. Yet Mr. Bogle is swayed by some nice sounding rehtoric employed by Mr. Ceric. Fine again, he's not the first to think that true-believing Islam can really be a religion of peace.
But those matters aside, here is where I am most surprised:
"The Austrian Empire was never perfect (what polity ever is?) but we might usefully study today just how it managed for so long to keep so many different ethnics groups together in relative peace, stability and harmony."
It was an empire, not a voluntary union. It had its own aristocracy and hierarchy of "in crowds", of which Serbs were most certainly out as adequately described above whereby they and their lands were chattle traded in deals with Magyar overlords within the empire.
And in his last posting, Mr. Bogle, like so many other Austrian Empire enthusiasts, derided the assasins in Sarajevo who shot the heir to the imperial throne as terrorists. Now, I will say that I personally on historic grounds do not regard the assasination as a good thing, foremost on pragmatic grounds but also moral ones. But supporters of empire - meaning supporters of a regime that rules by force - should not be shocked, dismayed or driven to hyperbole (such as speaking of "terrorists") when denouncing a violent reaction to imperial bullying. It is part and parcel of the calculus of life on the imperial fringe of which the Bosnian lands were a forecfully annexed province.
At the end of the day, if I had only his two posts to go by, I'd conclude that Mr. Bogle - not unlike Dr. Hapsburg - holds many fashionable liberal views which are, unfortunately, incongruent with the very Catholocism he professes to uphold and are ultimately destructive to the very Christian Europe he wishes to see saved.
I hope Mr. Bogle will accept this response as analysis and neither as an attempt to defame his recently departed friend or Mr. Bogle personally.
I applaud Mr. Bogle for wanting to defend a man he admired. He is, however, quite wrong about the implementation of Sharia law and extremely naive about the Muslim menace. While I hate to give advice to advocates, I think he lost his case by more or less defending Islam. Sentimentality toward Muslims, joined with a strong polemical spirit against the Orthodox world, do not make a persuasive argument.
It is hard, for those who have not spent much of their lives studying the history of the Balkans and the East Roman Empire, to form an intelligent and accurate view of these things. Things are bad in the States, of course, but at least we did not give John Julius Norwich to the world. In all these cases, it is best to begin by knowing what one does and does not know, and however much Mr. Bogle may know of the Dual Monarchy, he has quite obviously not explored much that is east and south of Vienna.
"Sentimentality toward Muslims, joined with a strong polemical spirit against the Orthodox world, do not make a persuasive argument."
Sentimentality in general is quite maladaptive. In politics, it can easily cost as many lives as can polemic, the main difference usually being the distance between the preacher and the victim.
"The lesson of history is that narrow or fanatical nationalism is never likely to serve the twin aims of justice and peace. Indeed, it has often been the harbinger of the very opposite."
I have commented on this sentiment earlier but not no avail apparently. You can issue all kinds of lofty proclamations you want about Voivodina etc., but if you continue to Germanize your population for centuries by denying them civil liberites, certain occupations, civil service positions and force them to change their last names from ending on -ic to -in, forcibly Catholicize them, your view of justice and peace is imperialist and colonialist and therefore inadequate and subject to overthrow. And again, to label resistance to such justice and peace as "narrow, fanatical nationalism" betrays a certain mindset and reveals the fatal flaw in the concept which Mr. Bogle hopes to defend. That is, the Westerners to this day feel intellectually and morally superior and appoint themselves as arbiters of justice and order over everyone else. Aside from NATO and EU misadventures there are examples of leading thinkers on the left and the right. Someone like Hitchens might quip that the black Africa was better off under the British rule and Mr. Bogle and Doris Pack may feel that Balkans were better off under the Habsburgs without even a hint of how wrong and malicious this line of thinking is.
Since it is up to Dr. Trifkovic to continue this discussion, I am not going to go down the list of objections that Mr. Bogle demands to be answered. However, I am puzzled by the insistence of Mr. Bogle on the legal quality proof (heresay does not count) when it comes to defending Mr. Ceric or the deceased, whereas only a written statement like "I hate all Serbs and they should all die" would be acceptable as a proof of Serb hating. Obviously we are not gonna find this type of evidence, since in contemporary discourse such statements by public figures are unacceptable. (even though it is often being allowed in the Serb case).
I was hoping to avoid making this comparison, however since my last post was unanswered, here it is. I was earlier described by Mr. Bogle as "irrational", when I pointed out that if indeed Mr. Habsburg and Mr. Ceric are fair-minded they would have somewhere along the lines written something about the Serb Holocaust.
Let's say that the Holcaust of the Jews during WW2 was not widely known. If Mr. Habsburg, as a historian, knew about the Shoah of the Jews and chose not to write about Auschwitz, even though he new a great deal about it, while the Western public at large did not, and the Jews continued to be persecuted, would such silence be considered anti-Semitic? Well then, Mr. Bogle, since Mr. Habsburg most certainly must have known about Jasenovac, Jadovno, Glina, all the Ustasi pogroms, alomst a million Serbs and Jews being buchered in most primitive and bloodlust manner, and then chose not to explain to the Western world why the Serbs are fighting in 1992 in Bosnia, why shouldn't such silence be explained as anti-Serb? And a similar parallel can be made about Kosovo.
Like most who have written and commented on the “Chronicles” forum over the years, I am all for an open and *respectful* debate between individuals. Not all writers have agreed with one another on this forum, but they at least emit disagreement with a sense of professional reverence. However, with all due respect, Mr. Bogle’s articles seem to exude a tone of “personal” gripe with Dr. Trifkovic, rather than simple fact or ideology. Although some may view Dr. Trifkovic’s lack of return *hen-pecking* as “silence means acceptance,” anyone who has read his books in-depth knows that he has written extensively on Balkan history and the trials and tribulations between the Coats, Serbs, Habsburgs, Ottomans, and even the Nazis - - Catholic, Orthodox, and Muslims. With this said, I believe many people (inadvertently) misconstrue his authorship as perhaps accusatory and one-sided. I guess I have always viewed it differently. I see his point of view from an “analytical” perspective. Just because a “link” doesn’t work, does not mean an author cannot back it up. I cannot begin to tell you how many so-called credible articles I have read over the years where the link no longer works. This happens quite a bit actually.
As member of the Habsburg lineage and one who was raised in the traditional Catholic (Latin) forum, I can honestly state that I have not always been proud of the Habsburg or Catholic history, and willing to admit the faults, as I am quick to point out their rights. If one has read his articles and books, s/he will clearly see that Dr. Trifkovic has actually revered some of the Serb-Habsburg history. Some of the Habsburg’s greatest military leaders were in fact, Serbs. In some respect, their history resembled a toxic marriage - - - can’t live with ‘em; can’t live without ‘em. He is entitled to his opinion and, in particular, his view of the history and associations of Archduke Otto.
Moreover, I found his writings never to pit Catholics against Orthodox Christians. To the contrary, I found they advocate Christians coming together for a common cause: Fighting Muslim conquest and forced Sharia law, which history has proven tends to repeat itself. For Archduke Otto or even Bogle to believe a peaceful co-existence can be achieved is not only denying history, but similar to actually believing that NATO didn’t support the KLA. Muslims are simply practicing Taqiyya - - - even Bernard Lewis has written extensively on this subject. Moreover, as much as “The quotes from Dr. Ceric are little more than the kind comments that one would expect from any Muslim mufti, moderate or otherwise,” Mr. Bogle, in fact, is denying this practice (Taqiyya) and history. Of course, he [Ceric] is acting moderate. Did you expect differently? If, in fact, Mr. Bogle believes Ceric lives by this motto, then according to Muslim doctrine, he is not a true Muslim. It is all or nothing in Islam. Selective belief is not an Islamic option, but a brilliant chess move.
Referencing the ICTY’s convictions of Serbian leaders is shameful - - - especially from an attorney - - - as logical people see this court for what it truly is: A Mickey Mouse, kangaroo platform for a global agenda. Moreover, to equate terms such as “friends and colleagues” with expert testimony during the ICTY really stinks to high heaven for an attorney.
If Mr. Bogle believes that Dr. Trifkovic’s analysis was inappropriate considering the short time-frame of his death, then equally so, Mr. Bogle should refrain from providing angry rebuttals when he is clearly emotionally tied to Archduke Otto. Attorneys should never think with emotion.
When I was very young, one of the first lessons I learned was: “If words are worth a thousand, tone of voice is worth a million.” Perhaps Mr. Bogle will conced to such a motto in the future. Rebuttals are acceptable - - - but only credible when exhibited with professional class and integrity.
#7. That is not it at all! It is that Serbs do not have an argument or that their argument is irrelevant in front of the glorious and superior Western culture pundits. On the other hand, since the Croats have finally been vindicated and reaccepted in the West, for them, I guess there is nothing to worry about. Finally!
Methinks Mr. Bogle dost protest too much....
Mr. Bogle, The info on the destruction of the Njegos chapel, symbol of Orthodox Christianity is available on the internet in Serbocroatian. The destruction of the chapel was authorized in 1969 by the commmunists. In its place an ugly mausoleum was built against the wishes of the Petrovic family, financed by Vatican to the tune of 500 million liras, the motive being to help return the Montenegrins to the true Catholic religion. Some of the archived letters in Cetinje attest to this. The pope's emissary in this effort was Francisco Palovinetti.
These exchanges between Dr. T and the Honorable James Bogle illustrate the first principle of sociology or what traditionalists once referred to as a marriage,....even with the help of grace, a fallen people do not get along very well, very often.
It appears to me that Mr Bogle has a flawed view of the role of Islam in the Balkans. I can only echo the objections of others who have already posted here, so I need not say more.
If von Habsburg did lend support to Moslems in Kosovo or Bosnia, then his legacy certainly is ambiguous. That does not make him a bad man, but perhaps it means he was naive, had been deceived, etc. I would lean towards naive considering his support for European integration and Union. One would have to be naive to support such a thing with sincerity.
Nor do I consider the point proven concerning the Ceric quote. Everything is encapsulated in the last sentence, the one Dr Trifkovic originally used. Saying that in Islam lies all that is required for a creature to be classified as a human certainly implies that one who is not Moslem is a 'creature', as if one cannot be human without it. Why else use such wording? Why use the word 'creature' at all? This is enough to make me wonder if we're not looking at a Freudian slip, as if he were trying to appear all multicultural, tolerant, and all-inclusive, but just let his real opinion slip through despite himself. He most certainly does not then point out that Christianity or Judaism, much less secularism, also contain all that is required for a 'creature' to be 'human'.
Nevertheless, back to von Hapsburg.
I tend to agree with Eagle, that he held 'many fashionable liberal views which are, unfortunately, incongruent with the very Catholocism he professes to uphold and are ultimately destructive to the very Christian Europe he wishes to see saved.'
He apparently was a man of internal contradiction, as many intelligent men are. One wonders if it could be otherwise in the insanely contradictory and incongruous 20th century world in which he had to come of age, live and act. How many people today are not full of such internal contradictions and naiveties in a modern world largely based on them, many of them destructive both to self and to civilisation itself? Thus, he was just like everyone else, and therefore was, as he doubtlessly knew, and as was expressed so eloquently at his funeral, 'Otto, a poor sinner'.
@Rick Nicoletti - Archduke Otto was a devout Catholic not a 32nd degree freemason, which would not only be counter to the timeless principles of Catholicism but counter to the principles of the Habsburg monarchy.
The Masonic charge is, once again, devoid of any evidence. It is another Trifko-smear. Even now Dr. Trifkovic has produced zero evidence for it, although he has ample opportunity so to do.
No-one but a fool can object to "peaceful co-existence" provided it is not obtained at the cost of justice and truth.
Archduke Otto was never one to promote it at the cost of either justice or truth.
If you are truly interested in truth and justice you will stop excusing these smears against him.
@NGPM – Archduke Otto was never a supporter of Muslim jihad or “dominance” in any country in Europe but, recognising that 90% of the population of Kosovo was Muslim, he pragmatically accepted that it could not be right simply to suppress them, as the Serbian government at that time wished to do.
As you go on to show, I have not at all illustrated your point since it depends what is included under the rubric of “sharia law”.
As to King James II & VII, he was called intolerant for being tolerant, just as Dr Trifkovic calls Archduke Otto intolerant for being tolerant.
The real intolerance is to be found in those who wish to suppress the genuine rights of others, particularly their right to life.
I fully accept that this includes not only nationalist fanatics but also Islamic fanatics (and doubtless some Catholic or Orthodox fanatics). But it is wrong. And Archduke Otto was right to say so. And Dr Trifkovic is wrong to smear him for it.
@ Eagle – I accept that my articles may be too long but I had a lot of smears and misinformation to answer.
You do not at all, however, show how they are logically inconsistent or incoherent.
Far from being “emotional” about the “departing” of Archduke Otto, I am happy that he has gone to a better place.
What I object to are the smears of Dr Trifkovic against the Archduke.
Far from “admitting” that Archduke Otto “endorsed former KLA terrorists” or supported Chechen letters or held Bosnian Muslim clerics in higher esteem than Christian Serbs or Croats, I expressly repudiated such claims, so your “understanding” is wholly wrong. You have clearly not read what I wrote. Was it perhaps too long for your attention span?
You can hardly blame a dead archduke for the refusal of Orthodox prelates to pray at his funeral.
The hyperlinks said to prove Dr Trifkovic’s smears simply did not exist. I am afraid you will just have to face this fact. Even Dr Trifkovic does not deny it.
I certainly hold no brief for Hashim Thaçi, nor Alija Izetbegovic, nor the US State Department, and I do not believe that Archduke Otto did either. You misrepresent both of us. Archduke Otto objected to any sort of brutal suppression and Dr Trifkovic has not at all proved otherwise. Neither have you.
Who are your “informed observers”, may we ask? Or do you simply mean yet more nationalist extremists?
Like Dr Trifkovic you provide not a jot of evidence.
It seems to be the abiding characteristic of those who choose to smear Archduke Otto that they do so without evidence.
If the peace letter was a “publicity stunt used to incite public backlashes and weaken Christian Russia” then please explain why Madame Saharov and Vladimir Bukovsky, both Russian freedom campaigners, signed it.
Or did you not get that far into my “long” article?
Far from being swayed in favour of Chechen murderers, I abhor their actions as much as I do those Serb murderers, torturers, rapists and war criminals who have been convicted of their crimes and send to prison for life.
But you seem to think this is “nothing to get worked up about”.
I'm afraid I beg to differ.
As to the crudely ignorant rhetoric regarding Austria-Hungary, even Dr Trifkovic has not pretended that Austria and the Emperor approved the Magyar dominance over Serbia. On the contrary, even in his own books, he has had to admit that Austria gave Serbia considerable independence. The imperial government strongly opposed the Magyarisation of the Transleithian part of the Empire.
But Mr Eagle descends into the very incoherence that he claims to eschew and disdain, when he calls “terrorists” those who murder Serb leaders but not those Serbs who planned and executed the murder of the Austrian heir and his pregnant wife.
Come now. Show at least a little objectivity, please.
Yes, I certainly deride the assassins, as I deride any assassins.
“Empire” does not need to mean “rule by force” or “bullying”. Far more do those epithets apply to those convicted terrorists who murdered, raped and tortured during the Bosnian conflict in the 1990s.
Most fatuous of all is to accuse me of holding “many fashionable liberal views which are, unfortunately, incongruent with the very Catholicism” I profess.
Mr Eagle clearly know very little about me.
He seems to know little about Archduke Otto, too.
What is “ultimately destructive to the very Christian Europe” he refers to is the kind of aggressively bigoted and narrow nationalism that leads to murder, torture, rape and war crimes. Likewise that which leads an intelligent man to smear his fellow without any evidence or proof.
I am afraid that I do not accept Mr Eagle’s response as “analysis”. It is too biased. It provides no evidence, no proof, no sources but only further smears and, unfortunately, it further defames the recently departed Archduke Otto and myself into the bargain.
I am sorry to see it.
@ SB – If you object to disrespectful comment and irreverence or griping, then you must object to Dr Trifkovic’s smears and unsupported accusations.
But you do not.
This bespeaks bias, I am sorry to have to say.
I withdraw not a single word of my articles because no-one, - not Dr Trifkovic, not you, not anyone – has so far gainsaid them or provided proof for the smears.
Dr Trifkovic has certainly written many books but he does so from the partisan Serbian nationalist view. He does not deny it. Fine – but let us not pretend that he is neutral.
As to the hyperlinks, the point you are missing is that he provided these links as “evidence” for false accusations against Archduke Otto.
It was not merely some passing reference, as you pretend. It was his supposed “evidence” for very serious accusations and smears.
But the “evidence” did not exist.
Let me make it quite clear: I defend Dr Trifkovic’s right to be critical of Habsburg imperial history, even if I do not always agree with his analysis.
But I strongly deprecate mere smears. That is unscholarly and unworthy.
Your paragraph about “peaceful co-existence” is incoherent.
In the same paragraph you praise peaceable coexistence but also condemn it. Which is it, please?
I accept your point that we must vigilant in the face of Taqiyya but your argument seems to be that there must be a permanent policy of war against Muslims at all times. Is that really your view?
Or do you, as most rational people do, consider that Islamic terrorism should be firmly contained but Muslims who are willing to live in peace should remain unmolested (so long as they do not threaten the peace)?
Are you really saying that even Muslims who agree to remain peaceful should nevertheless be deprived of civil rights?
Finally, if all the ICTY convictions against Serbs are “Mickey Mouse” then please explain why Biljana Plavsic accepted her guilt and her 11-year sentence? Was she lying?
Dr Trifkovic was, indeed, a colleague of hers during her time as a leader.
In his evidence at the Stakic trial, at page 13757, Dr Trifkovic admitted that he had served as "representative of the Republika Srpska between 9 November, 1993, and July, 1994” when Plavsic was a Vice-President.
Look it up for yourself.
So, he was genuinely a “friend and colleague” not just an expert witness.
Your attempt to pretend that I have purely “emotional” ties to Archduke Otto are also unimpressive. I have ties to the truth and I object to smears that have no foundation in evidence.
Your complaint is against style not substance. You cannot produce one iota of evidence to justify the smears against Archduke Otto. You have rebutted nothing.
Until you, or someone else, does so, I withdraw not a single word of what I wrote.
I'm sorry if you do not like that.
@ Jack Bailey - It is true that there was a further destruction of the Njegos chapel (which had been re-built by King Alexander) authorized in 1969 by the Communists.
It is entirely false to aver that Archduke Otto supported this Communist act.
It is true that, in its place, an ugly mausoleum was built against the wishes of the Petrovic family.
It is poppycock that it was financed by Vatican to the tune of 500 million lira.
Apart from anything else, the Vatican did not have the money to give.
If you claim to have letters from Cetinje then let's see them.
Put your money where your mouth is - and your documents where your accusations are.
According to the archives, the new mausoleum is a "pagan" building.
If you disagree - then give us the evidence.
Or are you going to follow the usual characteristic of those who smear Archduke Otto and provide not a jot of evidence for the smears?
@ Allen Wilson - I have already answered most of your points.
I have no illusions about the dangers of Islamic extremism and I do not agree with it as a religion.
But I do not think that Muslims should be denied all civil rights.
They are human beings, Muslim or no.
I am also aware that moderate Islam can burst into something more extreme at short notice as it did in Iran. I am godfather to the daughter of a Persian convert to Catholicism and she has has told me all about the revolution in Iran.
On the other hand, there are an increasing number of converts to Christianity from Islam. You do not hear about them because their lives are in danger from extremist fanatics and they are obliged to keep quiet.
Archduke Otto did not lend support to Muslim terrorists whether in Kosovo or Bosnia nor to any of their aspirations. It is false to claim otherwise.
I have already pointed out that his view of the EU was that of the founders, not the modern secularist view.
It would be ridiculous to expect Dr Ceric to say that "Christianity or Judaism, much less secularism, also contain all that is required for a ‘creature’ to be ‘human’" and it is fatuous to criticise him for not doing so.
Neither is it claimed that he used the expression "classified as a human". He did not say "classified". That is your addition.
I hold no brief for Dr Ceric but it is ridiculous to assert that his being invited to the funeral of Archduke Otto makes the archduke a supporter of Islamic terrorism.
You are free to agree with Eagle, that Archduke Otto held "many fashionable liberal views which are, unfortunately, incongruent with the very Catholicism he professes to uphold and are ultimately destructive to the very Christian Europe he wishes to see saved" but I know, from personal knowledge of the archduke, that is simply wrong.
He had some marginally liberal political views which some would not agree with but nothing that was incompatible with Catholicism, still less Christian Europe.
More importantly, you simply do not provide any evidence for your assertion.
But you are doubtless right that he had some contradictions as, indeed, we all do, and with that I cannot disagree.
Mr Bogle:
Archduke Otto did not lend support to Muslim terrorists whether in Kosovo or Bosnia nor to any of their aspirations. It is false to claim otherwise.
I didn't mean to imply that he knowingly gave support to terrorists, but rather that the information on which he acted may have been wrong, etc. Of course that was speculation but something is needed to explain his activities. He was after all, part of the establishment, therefore his sources of information may have been biased or otherwise flawed, as they so often are.
Nor do I think it was fatuous to criticise Ceric for his words, considering the overall context in which they were spoken. Furthermore, my use of 'classified' is quite justified and to object to it is nothing more than quibbling.
If you admit that the Archduke held 'marginally liberal views', then I believe you have proven Eagle and myself correct. Liberalism by it's own nature conflicts with any form of Christianity. If he held both to Catholicism and to liberalism in any form, then there most certainly was conflict. You cannot serve two masters. Even so, as I have already said, he was not by any means unique in that regard.
I just wish I could get down to the rock bottom of all this, because he was a man whom I greatly admired, and yet Dr Trifkovic is a man whom I have found quite reliable over the years. It will take decades for a proper perspective on the man to develop, as was the case with so many of his ancestors.
I apologise for the italics. I forgot to add the 'italics off' code after the quote at the beginning of the post.
I was tempted to take James Bogle’s critique seriously until he gave himself away in his treatment of Aslan Maskhadov and in his treatment of Otto von Hapsburg’s connection to the Transnational Radical Party (aka Nonviolent Radical Party), which Bogle does not mention by name. The Transnational Radical Party (TRP) is a front group for George Soros and, like all of Soros’ organizations (affectionately known as the “Sorintern”), includes many former communist sympathizers who jumped ship from the obviously no-longer-viable International Proletarian Revolution without altering their view that they constitute the elite which, by right, should determine the fate of people who lack an adequately formed consciousness. (Vanguardists forever!) Like all of Soros’ organizations, the TRP invariably supports Muslims against Christians. For example, in 2007, on the thirty-third anniversary (July 20) of the first of Turkey’s two 1974 invasions of Cyprus, the TRP sent a delegation to meet with the Turkish-controlled authorities of occupied northern Cyprus. The TRP delegation went beyond the call of “duty” in spouting the Turkish propaganda line (to a “T”!) and went so far as to announce that its members had decided to apply for citizenship in the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus! (Yes, this is on the TRP’s own website!) Just as, in the 1990s, we were lied to massively about the supposedly “multicultural paradise” that Europe’s leading twentieth-century Islamist, Alija Izetbegovic, and his equally Islamist inner circle—a group put into power through the devices of American Ambassador to Yugoslavia Warren Zimmermann—supposedly represented, so, too, did the TRP attempt to replicate this sordid template in Chechnya. The TRP engaged in propaganda that equaled the hysterical 1990s propaganda of the “Sorintern” concerning Bosnia and Kosovo. Thus, the TRP website displays—and this is not atypical—“23 February, 2004: Stalin yesterday, Putin today. The Chechen genocide continues. Demonstrations in Rome, Brussels, Copenhagen, Moscow, Prague, Vilnius, Vienna, Warsaw, Ekaterinburg, Berlin.” There was clearly an attempt to apply the model of the Yugoslav carve-up to Russia through yet another alliance with Islamists, with Russia to be left a crippled, dismembered, hulk and with her considerable natural resources to be controlled by, well, people like George Soros. Concerning Aslan Maskhadov, Mr. Bogle’s portrayal of him as moderate and a peacemaker is shameful, and recalls the portrayal of the Islamist Izetbegovic as an avuncular “multiculturalist.” Maskhadov might have been the most presentable face to the world that Chechnya’s Islamists had, but under Maskhadov’s governance Chechnya enacted Sharia law, with its standard accompanying beheadings and limb amputations. When Chechnya was used as a base for an invasion of neighboring Dagestan (with or without Maskhadov’s tacit approval), and bombings in Russia appeared to be linked to Chechnya—though the “Sorintern” and its occasionally feuding first cousins, the neo-“conservatives” (another group loaded with former communist sympathizers and their kids) predictably accused the Russians of staging the attacks--a line was crossed, and the second Chechen war ensued. The so-called “call for peace” by the TRP that Otto von Hapsburg signed is from late 2003. By that time, it was obvious that the Islamists in Chechnya were not going to win the war and that all the Sorosite and neo-“con” “genocide” propaganda/pornography was not going to get the major Western nations, their military capabilities already overstretched, to bomb a no-longer-bankrupt Security Council member with plenty of weapons of mass destruction. The TRP’s so-called “call to peace” in late 2003 was a minimally-disguised ploy to maintain Chechnya under Islamist control. Only a fool could not comprehend this--or a person committed to, or uncomprehending of, the Islamist cause, or one blinded by the contempt for Orthodox Christianity that is even more a leitmotif of British foreign policy than it is of Austrian (or German) policy, with Britain for the last two centuries the very mother of misorthodoxy, with her American offspring having picked up the family illness in a very big way. (One might pause here to note that Mr. Bogle seems to be tone deaf—perhaps intentionally?--to taqiyya, and that his presentation of Mufti Mustafa Ceric as yet another avuncular peace loving Muslim “muliculturalist” is almost certainly chimerical, particularly as Ceric is a product of Alija Izetbegovic’ Islamist circle.) If the “internationalist” Otto von Hapsburg had no idea of what his association with groups like the TRP was about, then he is not worth discussing: Requieset in pace. If he was comprehending, then Srdja Trifkovic’ view of Otto von Hapsburg is fundamentally accurate. (Perhaps something similar could be said about Mr. Bogle.) Still, why would a member of the royal family of a nation that had its capital twice besieged by Islamic forces—I was amazed to learn recently that the paternal great-grandparents of one of Austria’s great (and best) men, Franz Joseph Haydn, were killed by invading Turkish troops in 1683—be so pro-Islamic? And why would any Englishman? After all, whether Mufti Ceric said or did not say that Britain would be “one of the early ‘trophies’ of Islam in Europe,” this is exactly what is happening. Strange, very, very strange.
PS—Mr. Bogle claims to know where Mr. Trifkovic gets his information, and disapproves of the sources—though it is hard to see how any sources could be more dishonest than those of the mainstream press in most Western countries. But how does Mr. Bogle know what Mr. Trifkovic’ sources really are? Is he clairvoyant? Did he discuss the sources with Mr. Trifkovic? Mr. Bogle must be a very effective barrister, since he knows all the tricks of the trade that have made the lawyerly guild so mistrusted, at least in the United States.
PPS—Mr. Bogle makes mockery of his own intelligence when he writes “Got that folks? The Vatican has driven its tank divisions onto the Serbian lawns.” (Even Stalin understood that the “Pope’s divisions” did not include tanks!) Pope John Paul II was in many ways a very great man. When, in 1979, his motorcade drove by my home, my family came out to welcome him, and then I walked a mile to be a congregant in the open air mass which Pope John Paul II celebrated outside an old Polish American (now Mexican American) parish. Fiorello La Guardia reportedly said that “I don’t make many mistakes, but when I make one, it’s a whopper [or “beaut”].” The Vatican under Pope John Paul II made one “whopper” and one “whopper-and-then-some.” The “whopper” was not to act decisively regarding charges of clerical paedophilia. Wrong in and of itself, this policy has, additionally, severely damaged Catholicism and the whole of Christianity. The “whopper-and-then-some” is that Pope John Paul II listened to his own Politburo (which may have contained men who had helped Balkan Nazis escape) and supported Germany’s policy of carving up Yugoslavia. How else does one explain the lunacy of the Vatican championing the creation of a state, Bosnia, in which a Christian majority (Orthodox and Catholic) was to be governed by a government dominated by Islamists? The results of this policy go beyond “mere” warfare in the Balkans and the poisoning of the movement towards Orthodox-Catholic reconciliation and, ultimately, unity, which Pope John Paul II sincerely believed in. The very same leaders and opinion makers who applauded Pope John Paul II when he acceded to their Balkan scenario turned around and ridiculed him as a benighted, reactionary, racist, and even barbaric cleric when he spoke of the re-evangelization of Europe and, even worse, when he had the temerity to ask for a few paragraphs on Europe’s Christian heritage to be added to the proposed European Constitution! At the same time, elite European opinion insisted that Europe’s “Islamic heritage” be widely “taught,” with prominence given to Europe’s two great golden ages, Al-Andalus and the Ottoman Empire. Far from leading to the re-evangelization of Europe, the policies that the Vatican supported in the Balkans have been a major step leading to the Islamization of Europe. And it’s not only Europe. In 1987 Pope John Paul II visited Hamtramck, Michigan, which was heavily Polish American. Today, Hamtramck is heavily Muslim. The same forces (the Michigan ACLU, for example) which tolerate nothing but the most anodyne public expressions of Christianity support the public chanting and broadcasting of the Islamic call to prayer (in reality a profession of faith: “there is no God but Allah; Muhammad is his prophet”) five times a day throughout much of Hamtramck. Anyone (including some Hamtramck Polish Americans who have stayed behind) who protests the egregious double standard is attacked as, well, benighted, reactionary, racist, and even barbaric. Mr. Bogle is certainly smart enough to realize that these are the vital issues at play; not whether Swiss Guards, pikes to the ready, drove their tank divisions through the Balkans!
@ jack bailey – You will find no evidence of a policy of any Austro-Hungarian government seeking to “forcibly Catholicize” anyone, Serb or otherwise.
And, as with other critics of Archduke Otto, you provide none.
You can issue all the smears that you wish but without evidence for them, no rational person will accept them.
You can call other’s views “malicious” and wrong but without evidence no rational person will accept your unsupported opinion.
You seem to argue that a government may be overthrown simply because some of its citizens think it is “imperialist and colonialist”.
By what right do citizens claim to overthrow the lawful government?
This is a recipe for mere anarchy and is not far removed from Marxism. It is certainly not a Christian view.
I have no anti-Serb views or feelings but I do oppose irrational, fanatical nationalism in whatever nation (I oppose it in Ireland for the same reasons – that does not make me anti-Irish. On the contrary, I have an Irish great-grandmother).
I hold no brief for Dr Ceric. I am defending the good name of Archduke Otto who is recently dead and so cannot defend himself.
For the record, Dr Trifkovic has failed to answer my objections and failed to provide any proof for his Trifko-smears.
Neither have you.
You both fail to do so because you simply can’t. Period.
If you wish to be fair-minded, then, somewhere along the line, you should criticise the criminal acts of those Serbian leaders who have since been convicted of war crimes, like Milomar Stakic and Biljana Plavsic.
The basic rule for a Christian is to do as you would be done by.
Archduke Otto certainly objected to the murder of Serbs, as he objected to the murder of anyone. You will find no evidence to the contrary.
What, instead, you do is merely to assume that Archduke Otto did not object to the murder of Serbs because you choose not to find out the truth.
That is not persuasive.
Moreover, the murder of Serbs by other nationalist groups simply proves the very point I was making.
Let me repeat it:
“The lesson of history is that narrow or fanatical nationalism is never likely to serve the twin aims of justice and peace. Indeed, it has often been the harbinger of the very opposite.”
@Allen Wilson – Yes, you are right. Dr Ceric did use the word “classified”. So I retract that oversight, with apologies.
It is, however, ridiculous to suggest that you and Eagle are proved right, and the smears are proven, simply because Archduke Otto held “marginally liberal political views”.
You are playing games with words because you left out the all-important qualifier “political” and then went on to pretend that I said his PHILOSOPHICAL views were liberal.
That is merely cheating.
He was not a philosophical or theological liberal but had some POLITICAL views that were marginally liberal. They were not incompatible with Christianity.
Dr Trifkovic may have been “reliable over the years” but he has been entirely unreliable in his unjust and uncharitable smears of Archduke Otto.
He has, regrettably, damaged his own reputation as a scholar in so doing. That will not help the cause of justice for Serbs.
Archduke Otto was never a supporter of Muslim jihad or “dominance” in any country in Europe but, recognising that 90% of the population of Kosovo was Muslim, he pragmatically accepted that it could not be right simply to suppress them, as the Serbian government at that time wished to do.
As you go on to show, I have not at all illustrated your point since it depends what is included under the rubric of “sharia law”.
Sir, with all due respect, I would like to ask a few concrete questions that are still unclear to me and that have gotten lost in the flames of passion so well-fanned by this discussion. Did the late Archduke approve of the NATO war against Serbia in 1999? Did the late Archduke support the notion that Kosovo ought to be independent or that its political status ought to be subject to a plebiscite involving a majority vote on the part of its population? Did the late Archduke react when the riots against the Serbs flared up in 2004 and what was his reaction?
I'm not trying to be cheeky. I want to know the answers to these questions because, while it is one thing to "not suppress" a population in that one respects their lives and property, and while it is one thing to criticize Slobodan Milosevic, it is quite another to take the position that the chicken-bombing of Belgrade and the cause of Kosovar independence were morally justifiable, and the answers to these questions will help me to make a better mental assessment of just what was the late Archduke's line of thinking.
Moreover, by "it depends what is included under the rubric of 'sharia law'" may I ask you to be precise and tell me what you think is and is not acceptable under the rubric of "Sharia law"?
The one thing I can think of that would be acceptable would be to allow a subjected Muslim population to carry out affairs WITHIN ITS OWN COMMUNITY in the context of Sharia courts. But even in that case history (and especially the history of the Balkans under Ottoman domination) suggests that some non-democratic overpower would have to exercise careful surveillance to ensure that it does not get out of hand or that its tenants are not extended to apply to non-Muslims.
As to King James II & VII, he was called intolerant for being tolerant, just as Dr Trifkovic calls Archduke Otto intolerant for being tolerant. The real intolerance is to be found in those who wish to suppress the genuine rights of others, particularly their right to life. I fully accept that this includes not only nationalist fanatics but also Islamic fanatics (and doubtless some Catholic or Orthodox fanatics). But it is wrong. And Archduke Otto was right to say so. And Dr Trifkovic is wrong to smear him for it.
Monsieur, if I may, I have frequented this place for over seven years. I know the literary personalities of everyone here quite well and I know some of the posters in person. I would like to submit, again with all due respect, that part of the reason why your admirable zeal for the moral defense of the late Archduke has met with such ire is that some of the language you are using, in particular the word "tolerance," strikes a very negative chord with the line of thought promulgated around here. Taking the life of one who has committed no crime or forcing him to adopt a belief system he does not profess is of course entirely contrary to the virtues of kindness and gentleness, but that is different from being "tolerant" in the sense of allowing the civic sphere to degenerate into democratic anarchy. Perhaps that is not the sort of "tolerance" to which you refer; nevertheless, it is the sense most often expected of the general population by the modern left-libertine elite and it is the sense we have come to understand here.
Moreover, while one may certainly denounce fanatics, most of us here tend to be of the sort of thought line of one Anne-Marie Delcambre, whom no one can accuse of ignorance of Islam or the Arabic world, that "Islam and Islamism are one and the same phenomenon," and so lumping "Islamic fanatics" in with other types tends to strike a negative chord here as well.
Just a thought.
@ Heptaster – Sorry to say it – but judging by your long, rambling, monologue, I don’t think you were ever tempted to take any of my points seriously!
In fact, I wonder to what extent you even read my articles, particularly when you say something as silly as this:
“Mr. Bogle claims to know where Mr. Trifkovic gets his information, and disapproves of the sources...But how does Mr. Bogle know what Mr. Trifkovic’ sources really are? Is he clairvoyant? Did he discuss the sources with Mr. Trifkovic?”
The answer is very simple. Dr Trifkovic himself provided them. Go back and take a look, Heptaster.
I knew what his sources were because they appeared in his original article smearing Archduke Otto.
That is exactly why I wrote my response to him.
His sources simply did not – and still do not – prove his smears against Archduke Otto.
I suggest you go back and re-read the articles, Heptaster.
I am closing off this unprofitable discussion. I said the other day that Mr. Bogle was too sympathetic to Muslims and too ignorant of Balkan history to make a positive contribution to this sort of debate. I stand by those remarks. I received from him a peremptory and presumptuous note demanding my reasons. I drafted a reply, which I sat on for the past 20 hours, because I believe he is a good and sincere man. I still believe that, but the tenor and tone of his replies on this column seem to require a sterner response. Here it is.
Dear Mr Bogle:
I read your pieces quickly and initially welcomed your contribution. I am still delighted that you have been kind enough to participate in our discussions. Debunking links, however, is not the same as debunking an argument, and you have not done that. Indeed, I should say you have not even attempted to make an argument but have contented yourself with personal attacks on Dr. Trifkovic and his ethnic background. That is why you lost, hands down, even with conservative Catholics who at first welcomed your participation and are now shaking their heads. Even a very well-known Catholic apologist has made this remark. What may work in an English courtroom will not work in a civil debate on our website.
My gibe at Lord Norwich was not aimed at you, but it was meant only as a suggestion that even in Britain, whose failing educational system is still superior to our own, a fatuous ignoramus like Norwich can not only publish books on Venice and the Byzantine Empire but even have them favorably reviewed. Our people--English and Americans--hardly ever know much about this part of the world--and the books of Tim Judah and to a lesser extent Noel Malcolm are worse than the efforts of earlier generations. In defending Ceric, whose statements--whether made in the heat of the moment or not--must condemn him in the eyes of any European Christian who knows the history of the Islamic attacks on Europe--you are also defending an Islamicist regime that seeks the power to go back to its old business of persecuting Christians.
You say you have seriously studied these matters. I don't think you realize how much you are claiming. It is very hard to study the history of the Eastern Empire and its offshoots. First there is the problem of language. When Runciman was studying the Byzantine Empire , one had to have pretty good Greek and Latin, but also--when Bury set him to work--one of the South Slavic languages. As I recall the story, old Bury asked him if he could read Bulgarian and on the strength of some Russian Sir Steven said he could. I've been interested in this history ever since I read Gibbon in my 20's. I have read much of the Byzantine material in Greek and some of the Serbian stuff in Serbian. I have travelled frequently in the region, met many people, interviewed dozens and dozens of people of different parties and have read much of the propaganda. I even wrote a not very good book on Montenegro. Even so, I am a rank amateur with no confidence in my own judgment or in the judgment of those who have studied these questions with less diligence than I have.
The most important lesson my studies have taught me is that I know too little. I abandoned an interesting book project on the Siege of Belgrade because my ignorance of Turkish cut me off from their sources of information and my refusal to study Hungarian meant that modern works by Hungarians were unavailable. Most of what is available in English is pretty poor stuff, though John Fine's studies of the Medieval Balkans are quite good, but little of the Serbian material has been translated and most of that quite poorly. There is, for example, no remotely adequate translation of Njegos's most important works and the bulk of his output--and that of his predecessor St. Peter of Cetinje--remains untranslated. Life being short and my mind lazy and aging, I have only read the parts of immediate interest to me.
This is all preface to say that I do not take seriously your claim to know something about the history of the Balkans. Indeed, ignorance is your best, if not your only defense. My general objection to your columns and comments is that they read too much like anti-Serb propaganda and are, rhetorically at least, much too soft on Islam. Whatever you may have intended, your remarks about Sharia were very ill-advised. In the first place, it is simply not true that they believe they have to wait for a majority, since some aspects of Sharia they wish to implement at quite an early stage. Second, what you appear to be endorsing is the notion that once Muslims are 51%, they can enslave Christians.
Some time when you have nothing else to do, take a trip to Nish, where they have one of those very low-roofed churches built to avoid offending Ottoman law; then go over to the Tower of Skulls the Turks erected because the Serbs blew them and themselves up in the fortress, then perhaps go look at the relics of St Sava--oh, but you can't: The Turks burned and scattered them in the hope of wiping out the memory of the Serbs' conversion.
You speak of justice for Muslims like Ceric. I'm not sure what that means. When they have us in their power, they rape, murder, rob, and kill our people as they are doing even now in Kosovo. I believe we should not tell lies about them and that we should not commit aggression against them, which is why I have opposed the US attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, but they cannot live with us except as our masters. That is what their prophet and their religion tell them. If justice means being permitting them to avail themselves of our constitutional systems in order to undermine them as the first step toward subjugating us--as, by the way, some Muslims boast they are doing--then, no, I do not want them to have justice.
To those of us who have studied the ugly history of Islam in the Balkans, Mr. Ceric's antics are not amusing, and it is not pleasant to see him defended by a good Catholic. Of course he speaks out of both sides of his mouth: He is an ethnic politician. In my youth I admired Martin Luther King, even when my father, an old Leftist, positively identified him as a member of the Communist Party . It was only when I realized that, despite his rhetoric of peace, he was actively inciting violence, that I could take the measure of the man, and my impression was later confirmed by the testimony of his colleagues and by the FBI. It is impossible to believe anything said publicly by Islamist propagandists.
What your write of the Albanians in the Serbian region of Kosovo is deeply offensive, not just to Serbs and the Orthodox, but to anyone who knows the history of the region or has been to Kosovo, as I have been more than once. The first time, I walked half a block into Prizren and was set upon by an Albanian mob who tried to kill me. Why? Because I am not Albanian. They give the same treatment to Gypsies and non-Albanian Muslims. What you have written makes light of the sufferings not just of Christians but of the Albanian girls these people have sold to our "peacekeepers." Milosevic, whom I detested--I knew his brother-in-law, by the way, and he also detested him--was provocative in Kosovo as Vojislav Kostunica was arguing at the time, but nothing he did bears any comparison with what the Albanians had been doing since Ottoman times and are doing today.
Arkhan played at most a minimal role, by the way, in Kosovo, though some of his Tigers were probably there. He was a criminal before and during the wars, and the citation of him as a significant figure in Kosovo is not only an error but a smear job against Serbian Christians who have been driven from the region, had their churches and graveyards burned and dynamited by the Muslims. I have no patience with any argument that tries to arouse pity for these agents of Antichrist, and Otto v. Hapsburg was quite wrong in defending them, but, of course, the old game of the Dual Monarchy was always to divide the southern Slavs by creating phony identies--Kosovar, Bosniak. It seems to me that it was poor taste for a representative of a dynasty that illegally annexed Bosnia and constantly sought to conquer the Serbs, once they had won their independence, now to be the champion of the poor downtrodden Muslims.
We Christians have been under attack by Muslims for over thirteen centuries. They are once again, with the help of Western politicians and journalists, taking territory in Europe. It is one thing to view Otto v. Hapsburg, as I do, as basically a force for good but a man who in the pursuit of his dream--or rather delusion--made common cause with the Muslim thugs of Kosovo, but quite another to minimize, as you most certainly do, the gravity of the Muslims' crimes against Balkan Christians. However many links or sources you may be able to discredit, you cannot unsay or undo the historical record. In the end, your defense of Ceric and Rugova is all too much like the defense made by Holocaust revisionists who might have made a contribution to 20th century history if they had not been so eager to whitewash Hitler and blacken the allies.
Faithfully yours,
Thomas Fleming