Changes to Borders in Europe

[Timsup2nothin]

I seem to recall a similar "border redraw" plan that ended up with the US nuking Japan. Presumably this one would be better organized.

 

[Silurian]

It is my guess also, from what scant information I found, that this is being proposed from outside (read: the ones who created Kosovo the supposedly independent country), because the situation created in Kosovo remains untenable. And it won't be a solution.

Well Russia would have the most to Benefit.
It would use it to justify Crimea and could use it as a pretext to annex eastern Ukraine.
It would also put pressure on the Baltic states.

If it unstabilised the Balkans it would delay the entry of countries into the EU and NATO.

I seem to recall a similar "border redraw" plan that ended up with the US nuking Japan. Presumably this one would be better organized.

I told J "NO"

 

[HoloDoc]

A negotiated border settlement does not in an way justify a unilateral annexation of the sort carried out in Crimea. Although Putin will use it as justification, it will be a rather transparent misapplication of the precedent. Not that this is surprising; Putin would use the Pepsi Challenge to justify annexing Crimea.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

A negotiated border settlement does not in an way justify a unilateral annexation of the sort carried out in Crimea. Although Putin will use it as justification, it will be a rather transparent misapplication of the precedent. Not that this is surprising; Putin would use the Pepsi Challenge to justify annexing Crimea.

In blind taste tests, Crimeans like Russia better? That might be possible.

 

[HoloDoc]

And if they don't like Russia better, they will be cordially invited to a camping trip in Siberia for re-education.

 

[Commodore]

I just do not think it is a good idea to start chopping up countries again in Europe again along ethnic lines.

Why not though? Forcing different ethnic groups to live together, especially ones that have a history of trying to genocide each other, just seems like a recipe for disaster. I mean, there's a reason Yugoslavia broke up along largely ethnic lines.

 

[HoloDoc]

Why not though? Forcing different ethnic groups to live together, especially ones that have a history of trying to genocide each other, just seems like a recipe for disaster. I mean, there's a reason Yugoslavia broke up along largely ethnic lines.

It didn't. The reason war broke it was largely because the the Croats started massacring the Serbs in Croatia. The Serbs retaliated, then they both started massacring Muslims in Bosnia. Literally none of the states have actually broken up along ethnic lines, instead sticking to the borders Tito established.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Why not though? Forcing different ethnic groups to live together, especially ones that have a history of trying to genocide each other, just seems like a recipe for disaster. I mean, there's a reason Yugoslavia broke up along largely ethnic lines.

Didnt each of the countries (making up Yugoslavia) each with their own printing press, print their shared currency into oblivion ?
As for the ethic problems I suggest a "Final Solution" .... NO WAIT ! /s

 

[Commodore]

Literally none of the states have actually broken up along ethnic lines, instead sticking to the borders Tito established.

Yeah, they did. Just look at the demographics of each of the successor nations. Here are the majority ethnic groups and their percentage of the population in their respective nations:

Serbia Montenegro: Serbian- 62.6%
Croatia: Croats- 90.4%
Slovenia: Slovenes- 83%
Macedonia: Macedonian- 64.2%
Bosnia Herzegovina: 50.11%

So Bosnia is really the only former-Yugoslav nation that is even close to being ethnically diverse. The rest were certainly divided along ethnic lines. And this is current ethnic data. Back when Yugoslavia broke up all of those ethnic majorities were even larger in their respective regions than they are now. And did you ever stop to think they adhered to the borders established by Tito because Tito was smart enough to establish borders based on ethnicity?

 

[HoloDoc]

I'm sure the high percentage of Croats in Croatia nothing to do with repeated wars, poulation expulsions and ethnic cleansings.

I hate to break it to you, but 40% of a population not being the majority is pretty ethnically diverse. There is also an issue in separating ethnic groups in conflict zones to begin with; a Google search for ethnic diversity in Serbia produced two separate results. There is also the issue of 14% of the Serbian population being ethnic Albanians; are they Albanian, Kosovar, or Serbian? Are Macedonians really Macedonian, or Bulgarian? The former Yugoslavia is an ethnic mess.

And um, they didn't stick to Tito's borders. They fought a brutal civil war in an attempt to overthrow those borders. Bosnia was effectively partitioned along ethnic lines, making a mockery of those borders. The current negotiations this thread is discussing are taking place because of problems with those borders.

 

[Hrothbern]

Why not though? Forcing different ethnic groups to live together, especially ones that have a history of trying to genocide each other, just seems like a recipe for disaster. I mean, there's a reason Yugoslavia broke up along largely ethnic lines.

Those etnic groups are not so much forced together.... they live in fragmented clusters over that whole Balkan area, and over the Austrian-Hungary area as well, because of past migrations and wars. A process that has taken place since neolithic times as you can see from gene maps, the haplo groups. The Turks did not leave much of their genes/ethnics during their empire occupation, but did leave their religion in some areas.

I think the mountaneous geographics has a lot to do with it. Old migrations that lost dominance over the area withdrew in valleys behind mountain ridges and kept their genes and culture by seldom mingling. Old trading routes and old mining areas played a role as well. Areas existing out of plains, watershed basins, are mostly composed out of one dominant ethnic groups with mingled haplo groups. The Hungary bassin a good example. And Kosovo as well, as a high plateau bassin between even higher mountain ridges.
I addec a geographic map where you can think in the ethnics of the other maps, and then you can see how well that fits.

Here below also maps of the Austrian-Hungary area. Showing Big Hungary that had to give away most of its area in the big border redraw after WW1, where border areas that had mainly ethnics of bordering countries were attributed to those bordering countries. This is also the main fuel for the nationalistic sentiments of Hungary, that was reduced to less than 40% of its original area.
Also a ethnics map of former Yugoslavia.
And a haplo group map of the E1b1b, that shows if we would move etnic groups to "where they belong", we could better move 50% of the Kosovo people to North Africa, where there are most, or to the Red Sea area, where they came from.
Ofc I exaggerate with that E1b1b argument, but where does one end using that argument of unification of ethnic groups ?.

All in all my opinion is that the etnics are so much scattered that you never get it right by border swapping.
And forcing people to move ? Who would be entitled ?
I also think that these people are very much rooted in the area they live, their own mountain valley. I do think they are more tied to their geographical area than that they want to solve the etnics issue by moving themselves. (oh yes they would love if these "others" would move or just disappear)

This whole area is a stubborn collection of many gunpowder barrels since ages and the only real solution is when they, over the course of many generations, mingle between them, or young people leave their home towns, go their own life and slowly migrate in the normal process of urbanisation and slow globalisation.

Kosovo is that small darker diamond shaped area in the Balkan.

 

[Commodore]

I'm sure the high percentage of Croats in Croatia nothing to do with repeated wars, poulation expulsions and ethnic cleansings.

Which supports my point that it's better to keep ethnic groups apart, especially ones who hate each other.

And um, they didn't stick to Tito's borders.

So then why did you say this:

Literally none of the states have actually broken up along ethnic lines, instead sticking to the borders Tito established.

The fact that you are now openly contradicting yourself tells me that now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing rather than trying to make an actual point. Either that or you are two different people using the same account, which is frowned upon here at CFC.

Are Macedonians really Macedonian, or Bulgarian? The former Yugoslavia is an ethnic mess.

Sounds like a convenient excuse to ignore any data that contradicts the assertions you made.

 

[HoloDoc]

Which supports my point that it's better to keep ethnic groups apart, especially ones who hate each other.

That is a rather xenophobic, and frankly, disgusting viewpoint.

So then why did you say this:



The fact that you are now openly contradicting yourself tells me that now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing rather than trying to make an actual point. Either that or you are two different people using the same account, which is frowned upon here at CFC.

I'm not contradicting myself. They attempted to alter their borders through force, but when that failed they were stuck with the old borders. Not to mention that you explicitly stated they broke up along ethnic lines, when they didn't, but broke up according to the administrative districts Tito established. You are simply wrong in that assertion.

Sounds like a convenient excuse to ignore any data that contradicts the assertions you made.

What assertions? Your own source explicitly states that the "ethnically homogeneous" state of Serbia and Montenegor have approximately 40% of the population being non-Serbs. All I did was point out that the region is an ethnic mess; hardly a major revelation.

 

[Patine]

Why not though? Forcing different ethnic groups to live together, especially ones that have a history of trying to genocide each other, just seems like a recipe for disaster. I mean, there's a reason Yugoslavia broke up along largely ethnic lines.

I have a good friend who immigrated from Rwanda (he's been a Canadian citizens for some years now, I believe came here 15 years ago, or so, but maintains some ties to his family at home). He told me several times how the borders of African nations were all arbitrarily drawn up by European colonial powers, often in conventions and conferences in major European cities attended by diplomats who had never set foot in the continent or spoken to an actual African in their lives. They cut sharply across ethnic homelands and lumped awkward ethnic groupings into colonies (which later became the exact same borders of post-colonial sovereign nations), many of whom had long-standing hatreds of each other, and other such enmities were stirred up during the colonial period by colonial administrators and military officer as part of their policy of "divide and conquer." I asked him a couple of years why, now that every nation on the Continent of Africa is a sovereign nation and they have the African Union, which has all, I believe, but two of the 54 nations in Africa as members, to be a forum of discussion, why they don't all get together themselves and redraw the map to take into account ethnic homelands and better working ethnic cohabitation amongst themselves. My friend laughed cynically and said that not a single African leader would go along with such a plan because they wouldn't want to lose a single square centimetre of land to anyone else, but would feel utterly insecure of the gamble of what they might end up gaining. Plus, the rural to urban migration that's happened to some degree or another in virtually every country in the world today (except for many tiny Pacific Island nations) means many people no longer live in their ethnic homelands but have moved to bigger cities in the NATIONS they live in. Also, drought and war have caused migration to other rural areas that are still not those peoples' original ethnic homelands.

 

[Commodore]

That is a rather xenophobic, and frankly, disgusting viewpoint.

So it's "disgusting" to want to avoid genocide? You can deny history all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that when you stick a bunch of ethnic groups that hate each other in the same nation, eventually they are going to try to kill each other. Keep them separate by giving them all their own nations, and the likelihood of attempted genocide is drastically reduced.

It's also a fact that humans tend to prefer to be around those that are similar to themselves. We see this at every level of human society from nations all the way down to high school cliques. Humans naturally tend to segregate themselves into groups based on similarities and shun those who are seen as different.

I have a good friend who immigrated from Rwanda (he's been a Canadian citizens for some years now, I believe came here 15 years ago, or so, but maintains some ties to his family at home). He told me several times how the borders of African nations were all arbitrarily drawn up by European colonial powers, often in conventions and conferences in major European cities attended by diplomats who had never set foot in the continent or spoken to an actual African in their lives. They cut sharply across ethnic homelands and lumped awkward ethnic groupings into colonies (which later became the exact same borders of post-colonial sovereign nations), many of whom had long-standing hatreds of each other, and other such enmities were stirred up during the colonial period by colonial administrators and military officer as part of their policy of "divide and conquer." I asked him a couple of years why, now that every nation on the Continent of Africa is a sovereign nation and they have the African Union, which has all, I believe, but two of the 54 nations in Africa as members, to be a forum of discussion, why they don't all get together themselves and redraw the map to take into account ethnic homelands and better working ethnic cohabitation amongst themselves. My friend laughed cynically and said that not a single African leader would go along with such a plan because they wouldn't want to lose a single square centimetre of land to anyone else, but would feel utterly insecure of the gamble of what they might end up gaining. Plus, the rural to urban migration that's happened to some degree or another in virtually every country in the world today (except for many tiny Pacific Island nations) means many people no longer live in their ethnic homelands but have moved to bigger cities in the NATIONS they live in. Also, drought and war have caused migration to other rural areas that are still not those peoples' original ethnic homelands.

Yeah, what was done in Africa regarding borders is something that really can't be undone at this point. The Balkans is a different story though since a lot of the ethnic groups there are all still largely living in their homelands.

 

[HoloDoc]

Ethnic groups don't have to be in the same country to become genocidal towards one another. There is the concept of lebensraum. Historically, the more cosmopolitan the society, the less likely it is to practice something like genocide.

 

[AmazonQueen]

So it's "disgusting" to want to avoid genocide? You can deny history all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that when you stick a bunch of ethnic groups that hate each other in the same nation, eventually they are going to try to kill each other. Keep them separate by giving them all their own nations, and the likelihood of attempted genocide is drastically reduced.

It's also a fact that humans tend to prefer to be around those that are similar to themselves. We see this at every level of human society from nations all the way down to high school cliques. Humans naturally tend to segregate themselves into groups based on similarities and shun those who are seen as different.

But you don't see it in infant schools. Cliques based around race, religion etc don't really start showing up until junior school, which suggests to me it is learned behaviour.
Not that that matters when dealing with adults whose attitudes are set.

Not negotiating won't stop wars over borders in the Balkans. That region has enough historical disputes over borders that if a nationalist wants an excuse for a war they will find one. Surely it is better to encourage them to seek diplomatic resolutions than just say the current arbitrary borders are fixed.

 

[HoloDoc]

But you don't see it in infant schools. Cliques based around race, religion etc don't really start showing up until junior school, which suggests to me it is learned behaviour.
Not that that matters when dealing with adults whose attitudes are set.

Not negotiating won't stop wars over borders in the Balkans. That region has enough historical disputes over borders that if a nationalist wants an excuse for a war they will find one. Surely it is better to encourage them to seek diplomatic resolutions than just say the current arbitrary borders are fixed.

Meh, it might be that the behaviour is hardwired to puberty. Likely a combination of both; older kids start because of puberty, younger kids copy older kids.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So it's "disgusting" to want to avoid genocide? You can deny history all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that when you stick a bunch of ethnic groups that hate each other in the same nation, eventually they are going to try to kill each other. Keep them separate by giving them all their own nations, and the likelihood of attempted genocide is drastically reduced.

Said every supporter of the "white ethno-state plan" in the US, ever. Shortly before they said "Racist? Me? Of course not."

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, what was done in Africa regarding borders is something that really can't be undone at this point.

It absolutely can if enough actors want to change them. That's one of the many reasons the Congo Wars were as disastrous as they were: Rwanda and Uganda broke off the eastern part of the DRC under the aegis of various rebel governments and treated it as their own territory. Rwanda in particular has continued supporting such groups on a much smaller scale even since the end of "major" fighting in 2007.