Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Solution to the Balkan crisis?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678
Author
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Solution to the Balkan crisis?
    Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 13:03
Originally posted by Yugoslav


I think BBC doesn't know much about Vojvodina and Sandzak? Especially due to the fact that it missed 10% of Vojvodina, showing it as if it's part of Serbia proper.

That's just because of the Western concept of nationality. It still is practically identical to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Does this mean that you support that new European party which stands for all secessions, self-determination and independence anywhere on the European continent? ;)

P.S. What about creations of new peoples (previously a part of another) then? Would they also have that right?
I have my own issues with the BBC Yugoslav.  I err on the belief that all ethnic groups have that ultimate right, though i condition it heavily. That is it has to be an identifiable and unitary territory, no forced migrations and a identifiable history to that land. It should be done with no outside interference, no ethnic cleaning or loss of home for any one else, with the best case scenario being the mutually agreeable split. Like the Czech- Slovak split. The end result would have to show that the new nation can be sustainable in it own right.

But broad autonomy, federation, co-federation are just as agreeable and, sometimes,  a more practical solution. You can tell by my posts in the kosovo thread i do think that compromising Yugoslavia's sovereignty is illegitimate and very dangerous. Self-determination as a right doesn't excuse that behavior.





Edited by Leonidas - 05-Mar-2008 at 13:12
Back to Top
Yugoslav View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18-Mar-2007
Location: Yugoslavia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 769
  Quote Yugoslav Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 15:08
Originally posted by Leonidas

Originally posted by Yugoslav


I think BBC doesn't know much about Vojvodina and Sandzak? Especially due to the fact that it missed 10% of Vojvodina, showing it as if it's part of Serbia proper.

That's just because of the Western concept of nationality. It still is practically identical to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Does this mean that you support that new European party which stands for all secessions, self-determination and independence anywhere on the European continent? ;)

P.S. What about creations of new peoples (previously a part of another) then? Would they also have that right?
I have my own issues with the BBC Yugoslav.  I err on the belief that all ethnic groups have that ultimate right, though i condition it heavily. That is it has to be an identifiable and unitary territory, no forced migrations and a identifiable history to that land. It should be done with no outside interference, no ethnic cleaning or loss of home for any one else, with the best case scenario being the mutually agreeable split. Like the Czech- Slovak split. The end result would have to show that the new nation can be sustainable in it own right.

But broad autonomy, federation, co-federation are just as agreeable and, sometimes,  a more practical solution. You can tell by my posts in the kosovo thread i do think that compromising Yugoslavia's sovereignty is illegitimate and very dangerous. Self-determination as a right doesn't excuse that behavior.





To me, as practically a lawyer, independence is clear:

1. Colonies,

colonies (Asia, Africa, America & Oceania) have, and should have an inviolable right for independence, which no one and nothing can stop, under any reason.

2. State-less peoples,

It is to my opinion that we should internationally formalize that nations without nation-states' desires for independence are encouraged. I would, as you say, condition it - but in the end, if conditions are fulfilled, no reason to deny an ethnic group for its own state.

But it ends there. Minorities across secular states that already have their nation-states to guarantee their rights? Out of any sane question. I would never ever give them right to independence, because in my opinion it aint normal and isn't that which bases the world (hence, I don't think that Albanians in Kosovo, Presevo, the Montenegrin Frontier, Macedonia and South Epirus have the right for secession, the Serbs & Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Magyars in Romania, Slovakia & Serbian Vojvodina, or the Irish of Northern Ireland).

But Theodore, the Balkans do have such examples (new nations). I want to point out that I have no disrespect to these ethnic groups and do not right now go into detail the controversies of their ethnicities - but indeed, Montenegrins, Moldovans and Macedonians do fold under these cases.

Since you know Albania, let me give you a hypothetical example: Montenegro invades Albania and conquers its northern half, proclaimed a new state under its control in Korce. The "Mirdetese" as they are claimed, are proclaimed as the people of this new nation-state. In Mirdita, the people learn that they have been assimilated into Albanians due to 'centuries of Greater Albanian oppression and historic revisionism', that they are of different ethnic origins, that only Tosk is Albanian, while Gheg is "Mirdetese" and that Tosk has nothing to do with the Albanian language. Soon they form up the "Islamic community of Mirdita" and the "Mirdetese Orthodox Church". After at least 50 years of frozen conflict, the UN mandate a peace-offering. Its status is to be decided in a referendum. On a democratic referendum, the pro-sovereignists win a tight victory over the pro-Albanians. Do you understand my point?


Edited by Yugoslav - 05-Mar-2008 at 15:45
"I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 16:05
Originally posted by Theodore Felix

Does this mean you're against Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Swiss Confederacy, and would support braking the two states?


I wouldnt compare the Swiss. They have been together in the region for so long that they have basically formed a unique identity of their own that seems goes well beyond ethnicity. This has been building up for hundreds of years, not over a few decades (as Yugoslavia was built on).

And yes, I am against Bosnia & Herzegovina and feel that if the respective people truly wish to break off and attach themselves to their respective nations, they should. No ethnicity should be forced to (granted that they have a significant centralized majority) live in a nation they do not identify with.



According to political representation at the 1991 Hague Peace Conference and professional polls organized by the international community, over 51% of the Yugoslavians supported maintaining Yugoslavia.


What about the % of the population in areas like Croatia and Slovenia? Was it majority there?


The thing is that before the war which was within the last decade and a half, not in some medieval setting, the Orthodox Serbs did not have a majority in Republika Srpksa, the northern and north eastern regions of Bosnia were as mixed as the rest of Bosnia. Especially the cities, most had a Bosnian Muslim majority. So the Catholics and Muslims that got exterminated and ethnically cleansed out of that half of Bosnia and who represent somewhere around 65% of the overall population are the ones loosing out then since their rights are being trampled on more so.

The war was egged on by Western politicians since the mid 80s actually when you look at records and relations. The fact that many chose sides instead of trying to help in a neutral manner would probably have restored Yugoslavia to a more centrally autonomous standard, and retained the integrity of a unified government.


Back to Top
Theodore Felix View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 769
  Quote Theodore Felix Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 18:33


The thing is that before the war which was within the last decade and a half, not in some medieval setting, the Orthodox Serbs did not have a majority in Republika Srpksa, the northern and north eastern regions of Bosnia were as mixed as the rest of Bosnia. Especially the cities, most had a Bosnian Muslim majority.


Yesterday was yersterday, today is today; and the division in Bosnia are not getting weaker but rather they are strengthening. Serb side is becoming more Serb, Croatian side more Croatian while the Muslim center now now more Muslim(Sarajevo status as some "Balkan Jerusalem", I dont why that connotation was ever a positive one, seems to have ceased). On top of that there is virtually no cooperation and no real progress. The country is hopeless and should external forces leave, it will deteriorate into war once again.

Bosnia shows all the signs of an artificial state at this point: one whose existence is based purely on external support.


But it ends there. Minorities across secular states that already have their nation-states to guarantee their rights? Out of any sane question. I would never ever give them right to independence, because in my opinion it aint normal and isn't that which bases the world (hence, I don't think that Albanians in Kosovo, Presevo, the Montenegrin Frontier, Macedonia and South Epirus have the right for secession, the Serbs & Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Magyars in Romania, Slovakia & Serbian Vojvodina, or the Irish of Northern Ireland).



My main point is that had the Balkan borders been arranged according to the basis of self-determination and not on superpower favoritism 100 years ago, we would not be having these arguments. Its a little nutty in my mind that a state should border its own people(meaning that there are considerable portions of an ethnicity not included in the self-determination based state). What we are now telling these nations that lost out is: be happy with what you have now. Well, the truth is that the anger towards the old resolutions had not subsided and is still very active and so its simply impossible to tell the Albanians of Kosovo to end their hope of self-determination because another nation won this issue 100 years back. Your telling another nation to shut up and accept what it considers an unjust resolution. Hence why I support America's push for Kosovo's independence and the unilateralism of the declaration. Simply put, its a vindication of what I see as an injustice 100 years back. That some were given the full right of self-determination and not others is unjust, especially considering that these nations border eachother.

PS: There is no "south epirus", its just Greek Epirus and there really is no basis for any Albanian claim to the region since the Alb minorities there have long since been cleansed from the area. The frontier between Albania and Greece are finalized.

Since you know Albania, let me give you a hypothetical example


Im not discussing falsified ethnicities. Where exactly do we find such a thing. Im talking about those ethnicities that were recognized since way back and are not the result of invasions and frozen-conflicts. Albanians in Kosovo and Macedonia were not in any 'Albanianized', they have been there. As well as most contemporary minorities in the Balkans. With the exception of Macedonia, I dont know any state that has a similar in the Balkans that has suffered anything similar

Edited by Theodore Felix - 05-Mar-2008 at 19:04
Back to Top
Yugoslav View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18-Mar-2007
Location: Yugoslavia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 769
  Quote Yugoslav Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 19:55
Originally posted by es_bih

the Orthodox Serbs did not have a majority in Republika Srpksa,


Actually es bih, on the territory which comprises today the Republic of Srbska, Serbs did comprise majority just before the outbreak of the war in 1992.

Originally posted by Theodore Felix



The thing is that before the war which was within the last decade and a half, not in some medieval setting, the Orthodox Serbs did not have a majority in Republika Srpksa, the northern and north eastern regions of Bosnia were as mixed as the rest of Bosnia. Especially the cities, most had a Bosnian Muslim majority.


Yesterday was yersterday, today is today; and the division in Bosnia are not getting weaker but rather they are strengthening. Serb side is becoming more Serb, Croatian side more Croatian while the Muslim center now now more Muslim(Sarajevo status as some "Balkan Jerusalem", I dont why that connotation was ever a positive one, seems to have ceased). On top of that there is virtually no cooperation and no real progress. The country is hopeless and should external forces leave, it will deteriorate into war once again.

Bosnia shows all the signs of an artificial state at this point: one whose existence is based purely on external support.


But it ends there. Minorities across secular states that already have their nation-states to guarantee their rights? Out of any sane question. I would never ever give them right to independence, because in my opinion it aint normal and isn't that which bases the world (hence, I don't think that Albanians in Kosovo, Presevo, the Montenegrin Frontier, Macedonia and South Epirus have the right for secession, the Serbs & Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Magyars in Romania, Slovakia & Serbian Vojvodina, or the Irish of Northern Ireland).



My main point is that had the Balkan borders been arranged according to the basis of self-determination and not on superpower favoritism 100 years ago, we would not be having these arguments. Its a little nutty in my mind that a state should border its own people(meaning that there are considerable portions of an ethnicity not included in the self-determination based state). What we are now telling these nations that lost out is: be happy with what you have now. Well, the truth is that the anger towards the old resolutions had not subsided and is still very active and so its simply impossible to tell the Albanians of Kosovo to end their hope of self-determination because another nation won this issue 100 years back. Your telling another nation to shut up and accept what it considers an unjust resolution. Hence why I support America's push for Kosovo's independence and the unilateralism of the declaration. Simply put, its a vindication of what I see as an injustice 100 years back. That some were given the full right of self-determination and not others is unjust, especially considering that these nations border eachother.

PS: There is no "south epirus", its just Greek Epirus and there really is no basis for any Albanian claim to the region since the Alb minorities there have long since been cleansed from the area. The frontier between Albania and Greece are finalized.

Since you know Albania, let me give you a hypothetical example


Im not discussing falsified ethnicities. Where exactly do we find such a thing. Im talking about those ethnicities that were recognized since way back and are not the result of invasions and frozen-conflicts. Albanians in Kosovo and Macedonia were not in any 'Albanianized', they have been there. As well as most contemporary minorities in the Balkans. With the exception of Macedonia, I dont know any state that has a similar in the Balkans that has suffered anything similar


Actually, I disagree. Bosniacs and Croats get along, the only problem being that the Bosniaks use their numerical superiority and unjustly (some times even against the very spirit of BH) enforce it upon the Croats at times. It's the Serbs who want secession, and only because of Kosovo. BH has since 1995 passed through, year by year, gradual integration & reform. The country is now on the way towards the EU. Its only problem is Kosovo's independence that threatens the country - which is another reason why I oppose it. Now the Serbs are so drastically enraged, there are massive protests and attacks on consulates of countries that recognized Kosovo, and even on RS's own institutions. I don't now how long with the local Alliance of Independent Social Democrats will manage to maintain normal control - it is good that the elections were held back in 2006 & 2007.

The point is that such 19th century opinions do not belong to the modern world. The ideas of Greater Serbia, Greater Croatia, Greater Albania, Greater Hungary, Greater Bulgaria and Greater Hungary, no matter that they were once beautiful national-romantic events inspired by progress, are all ideas of revisionism today. The worst argument is "injustice" (and self-determination wasn't introduced upon the world scene before 1918 - the Balkan war was in 1912). The Hungarians have been treated at the Trianon with a massive injustice. How did Hungarian revisionism? With Fascism in World War II. Should thus, according to you, the Hungarians in the Serbian north have the right to secede and join Hungary? Or the Slovak ones? Also, the same mis-concept of "injustice" was used by the Serbs during the 1990s - they (in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia) even had legal right to remain in Yugoslavia, and so did the Croats have the legal right to secede BH and join Croatia. But did this occur? No. How did this revisionism escalate? With horrible crimes everywhere, the most known one being in Srebrenica. Most Serbs have even been expelled from Croatia. So, I say to them: Forget about it. I'm telling the Krayina Serbs to forget about their so-called "Government in Exile" in Belgrade and return to CRO, or find compensation elsewhere. I'm telling the Bosnian Serbs (and Croats, too) to shut up and accept how the world goes. The concept of Greater Albanian irredentism was seen during WII just like the Hungarian. Also keep in mind that there is one world that lasts from 1945 (or perhaps even from 1919) and totally different one that lasted up to those events that really *inter-nationalized* the world, events that were a breakthrough in historical events.

They shouldn't be called "falsified ethnicities". Is Spanish a falsified ethnicity or are the dozen ethnic groups that comprise it? I would still like to hear your answer on this. BTW, does this mean that you opposed Montenegrin independence (finally realized in 2006)?

P.S. You didn't answer - would you support independence of the Lakota in US? (and what about also dismembering the UK into England, Wales, Scotland and join Northern Ireland to Ireland, and also dismember Spain into 11 independent states)


Edited by Yugoslav - 05-Mar-2008 at 20:17
"I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."
Back to Top
Theodore Felix View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 769
  Quote Theodore Felix Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 20:57
P.S. You didn't answer - would you support independence of the Lakota in US? (and what about also dismembering the UK into England, Wales, Scotland and join Northern Ireland to Ireland, and also dismember Spain into 11 independent states)


I did answer. Look at my previous posts.

(and what about also dismembering the UK into England, Wales, Scotland and join Northern Ireland to Ireland, and also dismember Spain into 11 independent states)


I question the support that all of these movements actually have. Albanians in Kosovo that supported independence was nearly at 100%. In most of these cases, I find various contradictory numbers on the % of support.

Lets not equate everything with Kosovo. In nearly all of these other cases, support for independence is nominal at best and varies on the political mood. In Kosovo, the only thing on the mind of the people was independence, and it guided every political and social decision.

I would still like to hear your answer on this. BTW, does this mean that you opposed Montenegrin independence (finally realized in 2006)?


To tell you the truth, I did, but at least Montenegrins have a history of self-identity.

The concept of Greater Albanian irredentism was seen during WII just like the Hungarian. Also keep in mind that there is one world that lasts from 1945 (or perhaps even from 1919) and totally different one that lasted up to those events that really *inter-nationalized* the world, events that were a breakthrough in historical events.


These concepts of the state can only apply to Europe as in the Balkans we still identify with our state purely on the bases of a nation state. Hence you see Serbs seeing Kosovo as something of their own because their state held it.

Should thus, according to you, the Hungarians in the Serbian north have the right to secede and join Hungary?


How high is the percentage of Hungarians in Vojvodina? Like 13%? Are they even centralized? From the various ethnographic maps that I have seen, they are not.

Is Spanish a falsified ethnicity or are the dozen ethnic groups that comprise it?


Spain has had unity for centuries now, even if it was more loose then other European states. Again, your trying to apply the Balkan scenario universally. This is a mistake. The world is too big to see things purely from the Balkan perspective.
Back to Top
HEROI View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
  Quote HEROI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 23:55
Originally posted by

[quote


(and what about also dismembering the UK into England, Wales, Scotland and join Northern Ireland to Ireland, and also dismember Spain into 11 independent states)
 

[/QUOTE]
 
I am geting tired of explaining this,is like explainin it to a kid.People in the UK and in Spain have every democratic right to break indipendent.And if they choose to vote for a particular party (such as SNP in Scotland) they will gain indipendence with completely democratic means,the thing is that the country is a democratic country who respects all its citesins the same,wether they be Scotish or English or Welsh,or wether they be Basque in Spain.
 
The problem is that even if there is not one Serb soul living in Kosovo they will still claim the right to rule people who live there on the basis that it is the hart of Serbia.
Something which is Historicaly incorect anyway.Noel Malcom ,the respected British historian gave a very good answer to this myths just few days ago.
The Christian churches myths are also that,a national Myth,the oldest Churches in Kosova are Chatholic churches builld by Christian Albanians,and under the protection of Albanian families such us the Zajmi Family in Peja for centuries.Ciao.


Edited by HEROI - 05-Mar-2008 at 23:56
Me pune,me perpjekje.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 00:16
Originally posted by Yugoslav

Originally posted by es_bih

the Orthodox Serbs did not have a majority in Republika Srpksa,


Actually es bih, on the territory which comprises today the Republic of Srbska, Serbs did comprise majority just before the outbreak of the war in 1992.

Originally posted by Theodore Felix



The thing is that before the war which was within the last decade and a half, not in some medieval setting, the Orthodox Serbs did not have a majority in Republika Srpksa, the northern and north eastern regions of Bosnia were as mixed as the rest of Bosnia. Especially the cities, most had a Bosnian Muslim majority.


Yesterday was yersterday, today is today; and the division in Bosnia are not getting weaker but rather they are strengthening. Serb side is becoming more Serb, Croatian side more Croatian while the Muslim center now now more Muslim(Sarajevo status as some "Balkan Jerusalem", I dont why that connotation was ever a positive one, seems to have ceased). On top of that there is virtually no cooperation and no real progress. The country is hopeless and should external forces leave, it will deteriorate into war once again.

Bosnia shows all the signs of an artificial state at this point: one whose existence is based purely on external support.


But it ends there. Minorities across secular states that already have their nation-states to guarantee their rights? Out of any sane question. I would never ever give them right to independence, because in my opinion it aint normal and isn't that which bases the world (hence, I don't think that Albanians in Kosovo, Presevo, the Montenegrin Frontier, Macedonia and South Epirus have the right for secession, the Serbs & Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Magyars in Romania, Slovakia & Serbian Vojvodina, or the Irish of Northern Ireland).



My main point is that had the Balkan borders been arranged according to the basis of self-determination and not on superpower favoritism 100 years ago, we would not be having these arguments. Its a little nutty in my mind that a state should border its own people(meaning that there are considerable portions of an ethnicity not included in the self-determination based state). What we are now telling these nations that lost out is: be happy with what you have now. Well, the truth is that the anger towards the old resolutions had not subsided and is still very active and so its simply impossible to tell the Albanians of Kosovo to end their hope of self-determination because another nation won this issue 100 years back. Your telling another nation to shut up and accept what it considers an unjust resolution. Hence why I support America's push for Kosovo's independence and the unilateralism of the declaration. Simply put, its a vindication of what I see as an injustice 100 years back. That some were given the full right of self-determination and not others is unjust, especially considering that these nations border eachother.

PS: There is no "south epirus", its just Greek Epirus and there really is no basis for any Albanian claim to the region since the Alb minorities there have long since been cleansed from the area. The frontier between Albania and Greece are finalized.

Since you know Albania, let me give you a hypothetical example


Im not discussing falsified ethnicities. Where exactly do we find such a thing. Im talking about those ethnicities that were recognized since way back and are not the result of invasions and frozen-conflicts. Albanians in Kosovo and Macedonia were not in any 'Albanianized', they have been there. As well as most contemporary minorities in the Balkans. With the exception of Macedonia, I dont know any state that has a similar in the Balkans that has suffered anything similar


Actually, I disagree. Bosniacs and Croats get along, the only problem being that the Bosniaks use their numerical superiority and unjustly (some times even against the very spirit of BH) enforce it upon the Croats at times. It's the Serbs who want secession, and only because of Kosovo. BH has since 1995 passed through, year by year, gradual integration & reform. The country is now on the way towards the EU. Its only problem is Kosovo's independence that threatens the country - which is another reason why I oppose it. Now the Serbs are so drastically enraged, there are massive protests and attacks on consulates of countries that recognized Kosovo, and even on RS's own institutions. I don't now how long with the local Alliance of Independent Social Democrats will manage to maintain normal control - it is good that the elections were held back in 2006 & 2007.

The point is that such 19th century opinions do not belong to the modern world. The ideas of Greater Serbia, Greater Croatia, Greater Albania, Greater Hungary, Greater Bulgaria and Greater Hungary, no matter that they were once beautiful national-romantic events inspired by progress, are all ideas of revisionism today. The worst argument is "injustice" (and self-determination wasn't introduced upon the world scene before 1918 - the Balkan war was in 1912). The Hungarians have been treated at the Trianon with a massive injustice. How did Hungarian revisionism? With Fascism in World War II. Should thus, according to you, the Hungarians in the Serbian north have the right to secede and join Hungary? Or the Slovak ones? Also, the same mis-concept of "injustice" was used by the Serbs during the 1990s - they (in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia) even had legal right to remain in Yugoslavia, and so did the Croats have the legal right to secede BH and join Croatia. But did this occur? No. How did this revisionism escalate? With horrible crimes everywhere, the most known one being in Srebrenica. Most Serbs have even been expelled from Croatia. So, I say to them: Forget about it. I'm telling the Krayina Serbs to forget about their so-called "Government in Exile" in Belgrade and return to CRO, or find compensation elsewhere. I'm telling the Bosnian Serbs (and Croats, too) to shut up and accept how the world goes. The concept of Greater Albanian irredentism was seen during WII just like the Hungarian. Also keep in mind that there is one world that lasts from 1945 (or perhaps even from 1919) and totally different one that lasted up to those events that really *inter-nationalized* the world, events that were a breakthrough in historical events.

They shouldn't be called "falsified ethnicities". Is Spanish a falsified ethnicity or are the dozen ethnic groups that comprise it? I would still like to hear your answer on this. BTW, does this mean that you opposed Montenegrin independence (finally realized in 2006)?

P.S. You didn't answer - would you support independence of the Lakota in US? (and what about also dismembering the UK into England, Wales, Scotland and join Northern Ireland to Ireland, and also dismember Spain into 11 independent states)


Not in the cities, nor an overall majority. Nor all of present day RS which is an artificial creation post Dayton. If Dayton never happened it would never have existed, nor was it that big by the end of the war joint Croat-Bosnian operations re-took most of the territory. Then were forced to give it back by short sighted politicians at Dayton, which didn't end anything but escalated things by allowing an artificial entity to continue functioning. Herceg Bosna ceased to exist through Turkish efforts to reunite the Bosnian and Croatian politicians.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 00:26
Originally posted by HEROI

Originally posted by

[quote


(and what about also dismembering the UK into England, Wales, Scotland and join Northern Ireland to Ireland, and also dismember Spain into 11 independent states)
 

 
I am geting tired of explaining this,is like explainin it to a kid.People in the UK and in Spain have every democratic right to break indipendent.And if they choose to vote for a particular party (such as SNP in Scotland) they will gain indipendence with completely democratic means,the thing is that the country is a democratic country who respects all its citesins the same,wether they be Scotish or English or Welsh,or wether they be Basque in Spain.
 
The problem is that even if there is not one Serb soul living in Kosovo they will still claim the right to rule people who live there on the basis that it is the hart of Serbia.
Something which is Historicaly incorect anyway.Noel Malcom ,the respected British historian gave a very good answer to this myths just few days ago.
The Christian churches myths are also that,a national Myth,the oldest Churches in Kosova are Chatholic churches builld by Christian Albanians,and under the protection of Albanian families such us the Zajmi Family in Peja for centuries.Ciao.
[/QUOTE]

I like some of his works, but he does have a certain bias, too. Kosovo is the center of Serbia's medieval Zupa of Ras, which out of the various other Serb principalities became the most powerful and sucessful. Thus why you find Serbian monasteries and churches there.

Same for Bosnia Visoko/Sarajevo is seen as its center, but not the only part of Bosnia.

Similar to France whose Ile de France province actually was just centered around Paris. While other duchies could easily have gained hegemony as well this one regained its royal rights throughout centuries of politic and campaigns.
Back to Top
Yugoslav View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18-Mar-2007
Location: Yugoslavia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 769
  Quote Yugoslav Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 09:13
Originally posted by Theodore Felix

P.S. You didn't answer - would you support independence of the Lakota in US? (and what about also dismembering the UK into England, Wales, Scotland and join Northern Ireland to Ireland, and also dismember Spain into 11 independent states)


I did answer. Look at my previous posts.

(and what about also dismembering the UK into England, Wales, Scotland and join Northern Ireland to Ireland, and also dismember Spain into 11 independent states)


I question the support that all of these movements actually have. Albanians in Kosovo that supported independence was nearly at 100%. In most of these cases, I find various contradictory numbers on the % of support.

Lets not equate everything with Kosovo. In nearly all of these other cases, support for independence is nominal at best and varies on the political mood. In Kosovo, the only thing on the mind of the people was independence, and it guided every political and social decision.

I would still like to hear your answer on this. BTW, does this mean that you opposed Montenegrin independence (finally realized in 2006)?


To tell you the truth, I did, but at least Montenegrins have a history of self-identity.

The concept of Greater Albanian irredentism was seen during WII just like the Hungarian. Also keep in mind that there is one world that lasts from 1945 (or perhaps even from 1919) and totally different one that lasted up to those events that really *inter-nationalized* the world, events that were a breakthrough in historical events.


These concepts of the state can only apply to Europe as in the Balkans we still identify with our state purely on the bases of a nation state. Hence you see Serbs seeing Kosovo as something of their own because their state held it.

Should thus, according to you, the Hungarians in the Serbian north have the right to secede and join Hungary?


How high is the percentage of Hungarians in Vojvodina? Like 13%? Are they even centralized? From the various ethnographic maps that I have seen, they are not.

Is Spanish a falsified ethnicity or are the dozen ethnic groups that comprise it?


Spain has had unity for centuries now, even if it was more loose then other European states. Again, your trying to apply the Balkan scenario universally. This is a mistake. The world is too big to see things purely from the Balkan perspective.
 
Well I look, and all I see is an answer similar to the Serbian Premier (who reads "How to remain PM as most unpopular politician in a State" at bedtime every night) when asked if he would cooperate with the revisionist opposition to remain Prime Minister. Embarrassed
 
In Scotland, the people had elected in 1997 more self-government from London. In 2007, the Scottish Nationalist Party, forever in the opposition, has won parliamentary elections and now leads Scotland's government, which in its own declarations is for independence. There is no greater legal authority to save Britain's territorial integrity from secession, but use of force with US assistance might help. Also, do you really question the Basque state's separatist tendencies?
 
What do you mean by Montenegrins have a history of self-identity.
 
Hungary & Slovakia are more central Europe, rather than the Balkans. And remember Greater Germany & Greater Italy? Or what about today's movements of a Greater Russia? There's also the concept of Greater China, Greater Korea, Greater India...etc...the revisionism was common for the entire world, it's a stereotypic fallacy that the Balkans is 'genetically more primitive', which's cause are only the still fresh wounds.
 
As I said, I didn't refer to (all of) Vojvodina (in which it's over 14%) - but northeastern Serbia.
 
 
See this map. In it, Magyars form majority in all those municipalities save for the most northeastern Serb-majority 'Novi Knezevac'. Same to Kosovo - Kosovo's (south from Ibar) municipalities all have Albanian majority save for the Serb-populated 'Strpce'.
 
I'm not trying to apply the Balkans to the entire world (which is AFAIK applicable), but I'm, trying to apply your thesis that if a people doesn't want to live in a country - he should leave it and take with himself the territory he inhabits.
 
Originally posted by HEROI


I am geting tired of explaining this,is like explainin it to a kid.People in the UK and in Spain have every democratic right to break indipendent.And if they choose to vote for a particular party (such as SNP in Scotland) they will gain indipendence with completely democratic means,the thing is that the country is a democratic country who respects all its citesins the same,wether they be Scotish or English or Welsh,or wether they be Basque in Spain.
 
The problem is that even if there is not one Serb soul living in Kosovo they will still claim the right to rule people who live there on the basis that it is the hart of Serbia.
Something which is Historicaly incorect anyway.Noel Malcom ,the respected British historian gave a very good answer to this myths just few days ago.
The Christian churches myths are also that,a national Myth,the oldest Churches in Kosova are Chatholic churches builld by Christian Albanians,and under the protection of Albanian families such us the Zajmi Family in Peja for centuries.Ciao.
 
I'm afraid not. The British are still quite not very voiced about the secessionist policies of Scotland (which could be legal, if done properly), we have yet to hear from them - but you're wrong on the latter: according to the Spanish Constitution (1978) and its own laws and official policy, there is no way for secession of a part of Spain. Spain has numerous separatist movements (the Basques only being one of them - remember the Catalans), and this is the reason why the Kingdom of Spain is a fierce opponent to Kosovo independence.
 
And yet that is wrong. The people in Serbia and it's allies agree that "As long as there are more than 100,000 ethnic Serbs in Kosovo, it's worth fighting for." If there were not a single Serb in Kosovo, it would achieve independence much easier and with incredibly smaller opposition.
 
Firstly, Noel Malcolm is not a historian. He's just a journalist who had a hobby dedicated to studying histories of Bosnia and Kosovo for some time, also payed by those very circles to do it. While pertaining a certain dose of neutrality with the former, he has certainly went towards bias with the latter. Could you also elaborate please which are those Churches, when did that occur and a little background info on the Zajmi family from Peja? Because it's absolutely absurd to claim that there were no Churches in Kosovo before 1054. Big%20smile
 
Originally posted by es_bih

Originally posted by Yugoslav

Originally posted by es_bih

the Orthodox Serbs did not have a majority in Republika Srpksa,


Actually es bih, on the territory which comprises today the Republic of Srbska, Serbs did comprise majority just before the outbreak of the war in 1992.

Originally posted by Theodore Felix



The thing is that before the war which was within the last decade and a half, not in some medieval setting, the Orthodox Serbs did not have a majority in Republika Srpksa, the northern and north eastern regions of Bosnia were as mixed as the rest of Bosnia. Especially the cities, most had a Bosnian Muslim majority.


Yesterday was yersterday, today is today; and the division in Bosnia are not getting weaker but rather they are strengthening. Serb side is becoming more Serb, Croatian side more Croatian while the Muslim center now now more Muslim(Sarajevo status as some "Balkan Jerusalem", I dont why that connotation was ever a positive one, seems to have ceased). On top of that there is virtually no cooperation and no real progress. The country is hopeless and should external forces leave, it will deteriorate into war once again.

Bosnia shows all the signs of an artificial state at this point: one whose existence is based purely on external support.


But it ends there. Minorities across secular states that already have their nation-states to guarantee their rights? Out of any sane question. I would never ever give them right to independence, because in my opinion it aint normal and isn't that which bases the world (hence, I don't think that Albanians in Kosovo, Presevo, the Montenegrin Frontier, Macedonia and South Epirus have the right for secession, the Serbs & Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Magyars in Romania, Slovakia & Serbian Vojvodina, or the Irish of Northern Ireland).



My main point is that had the Balkan borders been arranged according to the basis of self-determination and not on superpower favoritism 100 years ago, we would not be having these arguments. Its a little nutty in my mind that a state should border its own people(meaning that there are considerable portions of an ethnicity not included in the self-determination based state). What we are now telling these nations that lost out is: be happy with what you have now. Well, the truth is that the anger towards the old resolutions had not subsided and is still very active and so its simply impossible to tell the Albanians of Kosovo to end their hope of self-determination because another nation won this issue 100 years back. Your telling another nation to shut up and accept what it considers an unjust resolution. Hence why I support America's push for Kosovo's independence and the unilateralism of the declaration. Simply put, its a vindication of what I see as an injustice 100 years back. That some were given the full right of self-determination and not others is unjust, especially considering that these nations border eachother.

PS: There is no "south epirus", its just Greek Epirus and there really is no basis for any Albanian claim to the region since the Alb minorities there have long since been cleansed from the area. The frontier between Albania and Greece are finalized.

Since you know Albania, let me give you a hypothetical example


Im not discussing falsified ethnicities. Where exactly do we find such a thing. Im talking about those ethnicities that were recognized since way back and are not the result of invasions and frozen-conflicts. Albanians in Kosovo and Macedonia were not in any 'Albanianized', they have been there. As well as most contemporary minorities in the Balkans. With the exception of Macedonia, I dont know any state that has a similar in the Balkans that has suffered anything similar


Actually, I disagree. Bosniacs and Croats get along, the only problem being that the Bosniaks use their numerical superiority and unjustly (some times even against the very spirit of BH) enforce it upon the Croats at times. It's the Serbs who want secession, and only because of Kosovo. BH has since 1995 passed through, year by year, gradual integration & reform. The country is now on the way towards the EU. Its only problem is Kosovo's independence that threatens the country - which is another reason why I oppose it. Now the Serbs are so drastically enraged, there are massive protests and attacks on consulates of countries that recognized Kosovo, and even on RS's own institutions. I don't now how long with the local Alliance of Independent Social Democrats will manage to maintain normal control - it is good that the elections were held back in 2006 & 2007.

The point is that such 19th century opinions do not belong to the modern world. The ideas of Greater Serbia, Greater Croatia, Greater Albania, Greater Hungary, Greater Bulgaria and Greater Hungary, no matter that they were once beautiful national-romantic events inspired by progress, are all ideas of revisionism today. The worst argument is "injustice" (and self-determination wasn't introduced upon the world scene before 1918 - the Balkan war was in 1912). The Hungarians have been treated at the Trianon with a massive injustice. How did Hungarian revisionism? With Fascism in World War II. Should thus, according to you, the Hungarians in the Serbian north have the right to secede and join Hungary? Or the Slovak ones? Also, the same mis-concept of "injustice" was used by the Serbs during the 1990s - they (in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia) even had legal right to remain in Yugoslavia, and so did the Croats have the legal right to secede BH and join Croatia. But did this occur? No. How did this revisionism escalate? With horrible crimes everywhere, the most known one being in Srebrenica. Most Serbs have even been expelled from Croatia. So, I say to them: Forget about it. I'm telling the Krayina Serbs to forget about their so-called "Government in Exile" in Belgrade and return to CRO, or find compensation elsewhere. I'm telling the Bosnian Serbs (and Croats, too) to shut up and accept how the world goes. The concept of Greater Albanian irredentism was seen during WII just like the Hungarian. Also keep in mind that there is one world that lasts from 1945 (or perhaps even from 1919) and totally different one that lasted up to those events that really *inter-nationalized* the world, events that were a breakthrough in historical events.

They shouldn't be called "falsified ethnicities". Is Spanish a falsified ethnicity or are the dozen ethnic groups that comprise it? I would still like to hear your answer on this. BTW, does this mean that you opposed Montenegrin independence (finally realized in 2006)?

P.S. You didn't answer - would you support independence of the Lakota in US? (and what about also dismembering the UK into England, Wales, Scotland and join Northern Ireland to Ireland, and also dismember Spain into 11 independent states)


Not in the cities, nor an overall majority. Nor all of present day RS which is an artificial creation post Dayton. If Dayton never happened it would never have existed, nor was it that big by the end of the war joint Croat-Bosnian operations re-took most of the territory. Then were forced to give it back by short sighted politicians at Dayton, which didn't end anything but escalated things by allowing an artificial entity to continue functioning. Herceg Bosna ceased to exist through Turkish efforts to reunite the Bosnian and Croatian politicians.
 
I know es bih, but look at this map (it depicts ethnic distribution before the war, military control at the end of it, and entity division after the war):
 
Bosnia%20and%20Herzegovina
 
If we notice the territory marked by the red line, we can notice that most of the settlements (territorially) were Serb-populated.

@Theodore Felix
Regarding assimilation: all nations assimilated smaller groups. It's a historical fallacy to claim the 'purity of ethnicities'. Some Serbian sources claim that a minority of Albanians came to Kosovo and then majority of them assimilated the Moslem Serbs, which is of course only Serbian fictional historical revisionism - the truth is however that today all (120,000) Serbs in Kosovo are Eastern Orthodox Christians, and that up to recently more Serbs down there were of Islamic faith (a minority of overall Muslims, but a significant one nevertheless). Populations of the Slavic Muslims were assimilated into Albanians due to gradual albanization after the national movement of 1878, the sole reason why the Goranis pertain their national identity lying in the fact of their continuous mistreatment from the Albanian side and gradual closeness to the Serbians. Even the tiny handful of their fellow Goranis that reside across the border in Albania have all been assimilated into Albanians - today they speak Albanian and consider themselves ethnic Albanians.


Edited by Yugoslav - 06-Mar-2008 at 16:09
"I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."
Back to Top
Theodore Felix View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 769
  Quote Theodore Felix Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 19:09
Ofcourse there was some assimilation, however, Albania did not invade the region and change the identification of the people. The replacing of Serbs by Albanians occurred largely through natality and changes in the dominant structure of the area over a period of several centuries.
Back to Top
Yugoslav View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18-Mar-2007
Location: Yugoslavia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 769
  Quote Yugoslav Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 21:16
Originally posted by Theodore Felix

Ofcourse there was some assimilation, however, Albania did not invade the region and change the identification of the people. The replacing of Serbs by Albanians occurred largely through natality and changes in the dominant structure of the area over a period of several centuries.


Indeed. BTW, did you check out the Hungarians (to the up)?

Also, why do you say that the Great Powers are mostly fault for what happened in 1913?


Edited by Yugoslav - 07-Mar-2008 at 20:12
"I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.