Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
So what? Lots of countries are ethnic hodgepodges, especially those that weren't constructed along specifically ethnic lines. Britain, for example. S'just a turn of phrase.
Alternative history: Yugoslavia
- Thread starter innonimatu
- Start date
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
But the term sounds negatively, because the Nazis used it. This was my point.
Replace "hodgepodge" by "mixture" or something like this...
Replace "hodgepodge" by "mixture" or something like this...
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
If the Nazis used it a routine manner, perhaps. But this is a single, relatively obscure usage, by a single (albeit senior) individual within the regime. It's hard to see how it can permanently associated the combination of two otherwise innocent words.
I mean, are we even certain that the original term used was? "Hodgepodge" is a colloquialism deriving from a medieval word for vegetable stew, so it's unlikely that there's a direct German equivalent, but rather that it was used in whatever translation you encountered to capture a connotation of randomness or irregularity.
I mean, are we even certain that the original term used was? "Hodgepodge" is a colloquialism deriving from a medieval word for vegetable stew, so it's unlikely that there's a direct German equivalent, but rather that it was used in whatever translation you encountered to capture a connotation of randomness or irregularity.
The Nazis used the word "party" to describe their political movement. From this point on, we should use the term "birthday gift exchange," due to the negative connotations the Nazis have given the word "party."
And since almost all of Europe allied with the Nazis during the Second World War, we should forget about using those ones, too.
Renner
Warlord
English #1 anyway.
Yeah, beat me to it. The Japanese allied with the Nazis, most of East Asia and huge swathes of the Pacific were under their control, the Axis had a tonne of sympathisers and collaborators in the Third World... You know what, why don't we just give up on this whole language thing? If any monsters try to carve our hearts out we can always scream.Mosley
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
It is optimistic that apart from nations such as Yugoslavia (in which every ethnic group wanted to split from the federation), there are also states which would like to unite again. One example is Moldavia and Romania (but it seems that Russian minority in Moldavia is the main group which is opposing this unification).
A song performed by pro-reunification Moldavians dedicated to Romanians:
Link to video.
I think that this reunification would be profitable for Moldavia - which is currently one of the poorest states in Europe.
Moldavia has no natural resources, no free access to the sea, no perspectives for economic development without support from abroad.
Check also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_the_unification_of_Romania_and_Moldova
A song performed by pro-reunification Moldavians dedicated to Romanians:
Link to video.
I think that this reunification would be profitable for Moldavia - which is currently one of the poorest states in Europe.
Moldavia has no natural resources, no free access to the sea, no perspectives for economic development without support from abroad.
Check also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_the_unification_of_Romania_and_Moldova
ReindeerThistle
Zimmerwald Left
You just stole the premise for my next TV show idea.
Seriously, the "Balkanization" of the Balkans is as old as Rome. It is how the PTB stay in power. Strong leadership is one thing, but, frankly, you need a skilled, educated and working population to make any nation work.
Look at Cuba. They are your #1 successful resistor of Yankee attempts to destabilize them. If you had a Cuba-like system in the Balkans, it may work.
Most serbian people are of the view that Yugoslavia should never had existed anyway. It came about as a result of WW1, which itself was in large part a result of Austria reacting to the expansion of Serbia in the balkan wars.
It is widely believed that Serbia would have been a lot better off if it just joined some more parts to a nation still called "Serbia", and not accept the creation of what ultimately was called Yugoslavia. Of course we can never know how WW2 would have turned then.
Serbians are always welcome to stay in Corfu though (WW1 reference)
It is widely believed that Serbia would have been a lot better off if it just joined some more parts to a nation still called "Serbia", and not accept the creation of what ultimately was called Yugoslavia. Of course we can never know how WW2 would have turned then.
Serbians are always welcome to stay in Corfu though (WW1 reference)
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Maybe it have been even better not to propose this monstrosity of a state at all. Hell, it might have prevented Italy from going Fascist!
It seems to have been a lost cause from the start. I am pretty sure that the Ustaše (croat paramilitary organizations, very much associated with nazism and local ultra-nationalism) would have formed anyway though. So Serbia would have had better just united some of the parts where there were large serbian populations in 1918, and maybe some significant cities like Sarajevo, in some viable border with the free states of Croatia and Slovenia.
By the way, does anyone have info on the position of Serbia in the treaty of Versailles? Did Serbia ask for the creation of a united tripartite entity, or was it largely imposed on it?
They asked. Yugoslavia was founded before Versailles, so when the Conference opened it was already a fact on the ground. Doubtless there were those within each camp who wanted an independent Croat-Slovene state or those who wanted a Greater Serbia, but in the end what was agreed upon was a united South Slav state. At the time the lands which would become Yugoslavia faced expansionist demands from neighbours like Italy or Romania; this combined with genuine feelings of Yugoslav nationalism led to the various factions deciding on a compromise. Serbia dominated the union from the start because it was the only one with the proper army and institutions, and the Serbian elite must have known this.
This. The Croats and Slovenes didn't want to be part of a Serbian-led state - the Croats wanted independence, while the Slovenes seem to have desired eiter independence or a continuation of the fairly benign Austrian rule - but with Hungary and Italy sitting on their doorsteps, they cut a deal with the Serbs. The theory was that while the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes would be Serb-dominated at first, time would change that and a truly equal union would emerge. If anything, the opposite occurred, with Serbia clamping down on any dissent and treating the other member-states as subject populations.
By the 1930s, when a new government in Yugoslavia attempted to end this counterproductive policy, violent independence movements had already sprung up, with Italy providing shelter and training to the Croatian groups who were willing to fight for independence. These groups came to adopt Italian fascism, and grew into the ustase.
I managed to find a map of the populations in Yugoslavia. I am not at all sure what era it is about though. It seems it is not pro-serb (judging from some serbian comments on the site it was posted, at least those in English).
The main problem with this map is illustrated quite effectively in Slavonia; Croats are the majority there, as listed, but they comprised about 60% of the populace, with Serbs as the other 40%. This makes that map of the map technically correct, but it doesn't give a good picture of the situation on the ground. There's a reason Slavonia saw the bloodiest fighting - not ethnic cleansing, but actual military operations - of the Yugoslav War.
It also seems a little strange that some Serbian enclaves in Bosnia are considered, but not the Serbian enclaves in Kosovo or the Croat exclave along Montenegro's coastline. A strange map. If anything, it seems pro-Serbian in Bosnia. The distinction between "Muslims" and "Albanians" is a little strange, since Albanians are Muslims. They certainly are the majority in the Sandjak of Novi Pazar.
It also seems a little strange that some Serbian enclaves in Bosnia are considered, but not the Serbian enclaves in Kosovo or the Croat exclave along Montenegro's coastline. A strange map. If anything, it seems pro-Serbian in Bosnia. The distinction between "Muslims" and "Albanians" is a little strange, since Albanians are Muslims. They certainly are the majority in the Sandjak of Novi Pazar.
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
That map is so....so wrong. First error: That map used an invalid census. Bosniaks are labeled as Muslims so it implies it was done during SFRJ times. As you can see cities like Tuzla have no majority on that map because during the SFRJ censuses 15-20% of the population declared themselves as "Yugoslav" thus screwing up the real facts. Second of all my regional capital Tuzla is marked as no majority even though it now has a clear Bosniak majority. The place where I live is marked as no majority even though it has a 99% Bosniak majority. It looks like the map used municipalities from SFRJ....which were specifically made so that there is no majority. Its clearly a pro-Serb map as seen by the Krajna (Croatia) Serb majority listing. Thats just awful...it wasn't like that before Oluja let alone after. These maps also do not show anything of pure value. There are some regions that have an X majority but are so underpopulated and barren its not even worth it. Bosniaks seem like a minority on the map considering the land distribution but still they are by far the largest group (~50%) and they are majorities (or at least largest group if no 51% majority) in all of the industrial cities which are key (Zenica., Tuzla, Lukavac, Bihac). You will not find a correct ethnic distribution map of the Balkans. It simply does not exist. Until every Ex-Yu country enters the EU or at least does a full census according to their rules...you will not find an accurate one.
