Display:
The first map is a map of the Yugoslav Banovine
From 1929, the Kingdom was subdivided into nine new provinces called banovinas or banates. Their borders were intentionally drawn so that they would not correspond either to boundaries between ethnic groups, or to pre-World War I imperial borders. They were named after various geographic features, mostly rivers. Slight changes to their borders were made in 1931 with the new Yugoslav Constitution. The banovinas were as follows:
  • Danube Banovina (Dunavska banovina), with its capital in Novi Sad
  • Drava Banovina (Dravska banovina), with its capital in Ljubljana
  • Drina Banovina (Drinska banovina), with its capital in Sarajevo
  • Littoral Banovina (Primorska banovina), with its capital in Split
  • Morava Banovina (Moravska banovina), with its capital in Niš
  • Sava Banovina (Savska banovina), with its capital in Zagreb
  • Vardar Banovina (Vardarska banovina), with its capital in Skopje
  • Vrbas Banovina (Vrbaska banovina), with its capital in Banja Luka
  • Zeta Banovina (Zetska banovina), with its capital in Cetinje
The City of Belgrade, together with Zemun and Pančevo was also an administrative unit independent of the banovinas.

Banovina of Croatia: 1939-1941

As an accommodation to Yugoslav Croats in the Cvetković-Maček Agreement, the Banovina of Croatia (Banovina Hrvatska) was formed in 1939 from a merger of the Maritime and Sava Banovinas, with some additional territory from the Drina, Dunav, Vrbas and Zeta Banovinas. Like Sava, its capital was Zagreb.

Here's a map of the Banovina of Croatia which
In 1941, the World War II Axis Powers occupied the Banovina of Croatia and the province was abolished. Some of the coastal areas from Split to Zadar and near the Gulf of Kotor were annexed by Fascist Italy but the remainder became a part of the Independent State of Croatia. Following World War II, the region was divided between new states of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia (autonomous Vojvodina province) within a federal Socialist Yugoslavia.
So it wasn't Tito's pen run amok.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Apr 6th, 2009 at 03:57:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Cvetković-Maček Agreement was about as ill conceived as the transfer of Crimea from Russian to Ukrainian control in 1954 by Nikita Khrouchtchev.
by vladimir on Mon Apr 6th, 2009 at 04:08:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You may be right.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Apr 6th, 2009 at 04:18:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Serb delegation which negotiated the deal was led by Prince Paul and Cvetković and didn't include any Serbian political representatives in parliament. The Serbian King's main motivation in signing this deal was to shore up his increasingly weak position in Belgrade... by gaining Croat support. It was vehemently opposed by various Serb political groups because it subordinated very large areas of the kingdom to the Croat regional government.
by vladimir on Mon Apr 6th, 2009 at 04:46:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
From the Banovina of Croatia article:
The banovinas of Yugoslavia, established in 1929, deliberately avoided following ethnic or religious boundaries which resulted in the country's ethnic Croats, like other ethnic groups, being divided among several banovinas. Following a struggle within the unitary Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Croat leaders won autonomy for a new ethnic-based banovina with the Cvetković-Maček Agreement.


Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Apr 6th, 2009 at 04:19:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series