Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 18th, 2016, 05:32 AM   #21

Domnall Ballach's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2016
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Blog Entries: 2

This is an era when conglomerate states are coming down around our ears. We don't need more.
Domnall Ballach is offline  
Remove Ads
Old May 21st, 2016, 08:29 AM   #22
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: ballkan
Posts: 2,987

Quote:
Originally Posted by At Each Kilometer View Post
Interesting article. Thanks for sharing it. As i understand it, creation of much smaller 'monster' south slavic state was possible right after WWII, based on panslavism. I doubt that romanians with their romance language, surrounded by huge 'barbarian' slavic sea and their daco-roman heritage would ever agree to be part of this abomination. Same for greeks and their ancient and medieval history. We are orthodox Christians and so what. Croats in this hypothetical state are majority catholics and albanians are muslims. No, panbalkanism is empty word. We fought to many wars in XX century.
Even if the Balkan people would be of the same religion, it can't happening. It's against the foreign powers interests.

2- The prime minister of Albania is a Christian catholic. The other prime ministers before him were orthodox, Sunni and Sufi.

3- If USA has no religious problems, why it could be a problem for Balkans!
piro ilir is offline  
Old May 21st, 2016, 08:31 AM   #23
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: ballkan
Posts: 2,987

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perix View Post
close to Utopia
If the EU dissolves, Balkans would be in big problems
piro ilir is offline  
Old May 21st, 2016, 08:38 AM   #24
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: ballkan
Posts: 2,987

Quote:
Originally Posted by At Each Kilometer View Post
My intention was not to divide artificially people on this peninsula into untermenschen and ubermenschen or accusing someone of doing so. What's wrong with word barbarian anyway. According to Demosthenes Alexander's father was barbarian. It simply means a foreigner. I used this word to underline that creating such monstrous megastate was and is highly improbable due to different people, languages and cultures on Balkans.
I think there's nothing wrong. After that Greece abandons its pan hellenic policies, I would support an Albanian Greek unification. The new state would be called~ Pellasgia. As far as we know ancient pelasgians were not indo- European, so it would be good to name the state with that word. Pelasgia looks the right name
piro ilir is offline  
Old May 21st, 2016, 08:46 AM   #25
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: ballkan
Posts: 2,987

Quote:
Originally Posted by Afrasiyab View Post
The article mainly addresses to the one major drive that united them: breaking away from the Ottoman rule. And when they did, they started slaughtering and invading one another. Now that the Ottoman hegemony's gone, i do not see any concrete reason for unification - other than a romantic one.
Indeed, there were some attempts unifying Greece with albania, at the end of WWII.
piro ilir is offline  
Old May 21st, 2016, 10:32 AM   #26

Perix's Avatar
Golan&Imbarligator
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Romania
Posts: 9,919

Quote:
Originally Posted by piro ilir View Post
If the EU dissolves, Balkans would be in big problems
why that?
Perix is online now  
Old May 21st, 2016, 03:53 PM   #27

Order of the Dragon's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2015
From: The Balkans
Posts: 241

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shtajerc View Post
True, it wasn't created by Tito, but it also wasn't working well before Tito as well. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was a failure and it went down as a failure. Just look at the events during the war in April 1941, there's a lot of interesting stuff and the rest of ww2 speaks for itself too. Out of ww2 a new Yugoslavia was born on new concepts, going a different path but even that eventually failed.
I don't see the events of WWII as a proof that Kingdom of Yugoslavia was destined to be a failure. People say this as if WWII was some minor "incident" that ultimately crumbled an already weak state. In reality, WWII was a major event which swept away a lot of regimes and changed the entire world. France crumbled just as easily as Yugoslavia. It doesn't mean Yugoslavia was weak because it fell apart.

Just saying that "Yugoslavia" was a failure is a bit like saying "Italy" is a failure anyway.

What exactly was a failure in Yugoslavia? The idea of Yugoslav unity in itself or the particular regimes and the way it was run (1921-1929 Vidovdan Constitution era, 1929-1939 Dictatorship, the Tito era, post Tito...)? I'd say that it was the latter.

I think the main failures of Yugoslavia were not enough federalism in the first Yugoslavia and too much federalism in the socialist Yugoslavia. Also, the external political situation wasn't good for Yugoslavia except for the Tito era, a lot of horrible circumstances. I don't think that the idea of Yugoslav unity itself was a failure but the way that it was carried out in practice pretty much ruined it and made it impossible to ever be revived again after all the bloodshed.

Last edited by Order of the Dragon; May 21st, 2016 at 03:56 PM.
Order of the Dragon is offline  
Old May 21st, 2016, 04:30 PM   #28

Shtajerc's Avatar
last real Windischer
 
Joined: Jul 2014
From: Lower Styria, Slovenia
Posts: 5,659

Quote:
Originally Posted by Order of the Dragon View Post
I don't see the events of WWII as a proof that Kingdom of Yugoslavia was destined to be a failure. People say this as if WWII was some minor "incident" that ultimately crumbled an already weak state. In reality, WWII was a major event which swept away a lot of regimes and changed the entire world. France crumbled just as easily as Yugoslavia. It doesn't mean Yugoslavia was weak because it fell apart.

Just saying that "Yugoslavia" was a failure is a bit like saying "Italy" is a failure anyway.

What exactly was a failure in Yugoslavia? The idea of Yugoslav unity in itself or the particular regimes and the way it was run (1921-1929 Vidovdan Constitution era, 1929-1939 Dictatorship, the Tito era, post Tito...)? I'd say that it was the latter.

I think the main failures of Yugoslavia were not enough federalism in the first Yugoslavia and too much federalism in the socialist Yugoslavia. Also, the external political situation wasn't good for Yugoslavia except for the Tito era, a lot of horrible circumstances. I don't think that the idea of Yugoslav unity itself was a failure but the way that it was carried out in practice pretty much ruined it and made it impossible to ever be revived again after all the bloodshed.
What was wrong with the Kingdom? Strong centralism, BS banovine sistem, admitting 3 nations (basically 3 tribes of one single nation) on a place where 7 countries exist today, army and most key positions being run only by Serbs.

With quick downfall during ww2 I meant incidents, where Ustaši bands of a couple of men disabled whole brigades of the royal army, which planned on giving up the North of the country and fight some sort of sitting, semi-hide-and-seak war in the highlands of Bosnia and western Serbia.

I think the main problem of SFRY was, besides communism, the creation of too many taboos, or rather said, the keeping of old taboos and adding new ones. The national question was only partially resolved. The greatest problem is probably the lack of discussion about stuff that happened during and after the war. That's why you have today people thinking Ustaše weren't all that bad, četniki being equal to partisans, people advocating the domobranci etc. Nationalism in the 80s and 90s, it's all connected.
Shtajerc is offline  
Old May 21st, 2016, 05:56 PM   #29

Order of the Dragon's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2015
From: The Balkans
Posts: 241

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shtajerc View Post
What was wrong with the Kingdom? Strong centralism, BS banovine sistem, admitting 3 nations (basically 3 tribes of one single nation) on a place where 7 countries exist today, army and most key positions being run only by Serbs.

With quick downfall during ww2 I meant incidents, where Ustaši bands of a couple of men disabled whole brigades of the royal army, which planned on giving up the North of the country and fight some sort of sitting, semi-hide-and-seak war in the highlands of Bosnia and western Serbia.
Again, those problems were due to specific ways the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was run. I agree that it was a chaotic state but it doesn't mean that the existence of state itself was a failure. Yugoslavia existed because South Slavic nationalisms gravitated towards the Yugoslav idea and after the war gathered around Serbia which was on the winning side. To say that Yugoslavia was a "failure" means that there was some other alternative for those people but in reality there was none.

People like to view this issue through the nationalism of the 80s and the 90s and act as if those nations had the same aspirations back then. In reality during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia both Slovenian and Croatian national ideas were tied to the Yugoslav idea. Slovenian nationalism as in gravitating towards a Slovenia outside Yugoslavia only started to exist in the 80s and Croatian nationalists wanted mere autonomy inside Yugoslavia which they eventually got with the Cvetković - Maček agreement in 1939. Bosniak nationalism didn't exist, the Yugoslav Muslim Organization cared only about the rights of Muslims as a religious group.

The fall of Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the rise of radical groups etc. was caused by the external factor World War II. I think that without WWII Yugoslavia would continue to exist and become more federal.

Quote:
I think the main problem of SFRY was, besides communism, the creation of too many taboos, or rather said, the keeping of old taboos and adding new ones. The national question was only partially resolved. The greatest problem is probably the lack of discussion about stuff that happened during and after the war. That's why you have today people thinking Ustaše weren't all that bad, četniki being equal to partisans, people advocating the domobranci etc. Nationalism in the 80s and 90s, it's all connected.
The reason why people have split opinion about these groups is precisely because the discussions about them started not because a lack of those discussion. Had that happened before those groups would have just been rehabilitated sooner in the eyes of many people. Besides, how is people having a different opinion about historic issues a "problem"? It's completely natural.
Order of the Dragon is offline  
Old May 22nd, 2016, 05:37 AM   #30

Decembrist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: the Nile to the Euphrates
Posts: 2,477
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shtajerc View Post
True, it wasn't created by Tito, but it also wasn't working well before Tito as well. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was a failure and it went down as a failure. Just look at the events during the war in April 1941, there's a lot of interesting stuff and the rest of ww2 speaks for itself too. Out of ww2 a new Yugoslavia was born on new concepts, going a different path but even that eventually failed.

With the exception of Bulgaria, we were the ones that had the most in common and it failed bigtime. Now one would want to make it even broader, even more diverse and hope for greater success? This is like speaking of communist America or vegan hamburgers with unicorn meat. The countries in the Balkans can't stand each other. Also, what economy would sustain the whole thing? We're bad off enough, this would make things only worse. Thank you very much, but should this happen, I'll move abroad.



Uuuuu, this should be more than interesting.

Is it true that all Slavic peoples of Yugoslavia, except Slovenes and Macedonians, could understand each other's speaking?
Decembrist is online now  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
balkan, federation, states, united



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Second Balkan War Aleeacerix the Gaul European History 118 August 17th, 2014 07:48 AM
Plan of the Balkan Federation (1804-1806) Magnate European History 43 September 9th, 2013 08:55 AM
Balkan Wars Dany European History 54 March 6th, 2013 09:43 AM
The Balkan war's sturm War and Military History 105 November 28th, 2012 03:53 AM
Balkan history history681 European History 6 September 14th, 2012 06:16 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.