Youtube maps of the future Balkans...

[Winner]

I'm honestly struggling to think what other region on Earth has spontaneously developed a widespread ethnic homogeneity. Usually that sort of thing only occurs when somebody makes up a bunch of new ethnicities for everyone to be a member of.

Comparatively speaking, of course. Western Europeans had (mostly) settled their issues long before machine guns were invented. Europe further to the East and South had not due to the presence of absolutist, multi-ethnic, multi-religious empires (Austria-Hungary, Russia, Ottoman Turkey). The more fossilized the conflicts, the bloodier the resolution. In Czechoslovakia and Poland, it was relatively "mild", meaning we didn't kill all those Germans, we just expelled them in a "civilized" manner after "they" occupied us to "civilize" us. The Balkan re-adjustment was rudely interrupted by foreign powers a few times since these countries re-gained independence from Turkey/Austria and so the final round of settling accounts came in the 1990s.

Ah, the wonders of ethnocentric nationalism. Romanticism to die for. Unfortunately, it was also inevitable.

(When reading the above, imagine me saying that in the most sarcastic tone.)

Are you serious? Any newly introduced religion (not just religion, even ideology) can cause bloodshed! And if you're talking about "then we wouldn't have the Bosnian and Albanian problems" you've got to be mistaken, look at Montenegro, it has 500000 people, small, they speak Serbian and are Orthodox yet they have a nation of there owns, we had a kingdom before the Ottomans so did the Albanians, and even without Islam we would've had a national "idea".

Yeah yeah, yadda yadda. I simply said that the Ottomans added another source of friction to the mix. I don't have any special grudge against the Bosnian Muslims.

So you're saying the fact that the Ottoman Empire was tolerant with other religions/languages/cultures was a bad thing ? Or are you saying that because they were muslims ?

Tolerance, yeah right - maybe by contemporary standards. The Ottomans identified people not by nationality, but by religion, a lot like Europeans centuries before. This contributed to turning the Balkans into a powder keg. Without the Turks, the Orthodox and the Catholics would have beaten the hell out of each other in the 16th and 17th centuries like other civilized Europeans and they would have settled down in some sort of religiously and ethnically homogeneous polities. Muslims wouldn't be there at all, thus removing the convenient whipping boy for fanatics on both sides. In the end, the modern history of the region would have been considerably less bloody.

So yes, it was the Ottomans who basically screwed up the whole region.

 

[del62]

All by the way, by the end of Polish reign those cites were ~50% Jewish. Good work, Poles!

I am really at a loss to understand what you mean by this statement, are you being sarcistic ? And if so what was wrong with Jews living in those cities, they were being persecuted by the Russian mob at the time.

 

[del62]

The existence of the Ottoman Empire is the sole reason the Balkans is in such a mess, ethno-geographically speaking.

Hmm, so Germany never had any influence over the mess

 

[TheLastOne36]

All those cities were established by Rus' princes and populated by Russians (as in of the Rus') until they were treacherously taken by Lithuanians when there was little opposition in the devastated Southern Rus'. Then they were incorporated by Poles, who imposed their heretical faith upon the good Godfearing Rus' folk. Of course they were eventually Polonised. All by the way, by the end of Polish reign those cites were ~50% Jewish. Good work, Poles!

Those cites (except Brest) were initially Russian, they were taken by force, and they were claimed back by force. The circle is complete, fair play, everyone.

Seriosly, bro, the only somewhat reasonable claim is Berestye (Bresc). It was established, apparently, by local lechitic Slavs, but wasn't a part of any actual state until it was taken by Kiev in 11th century. So we both have valid claims, but one day, we may graciously present it to you (if the locals won't mind. And they would.), in exchange of your eternal loyalty to Slavic cause (as opposed to usual selling out to West) and perpetual friendship with Russia

Whatever Ruthenian origins some of these cities have had, is irrelevant. Most of these cities have been controlled by Poland or inhabited by Poles for the last 700 years.

Anyway, those lands were settled by Poles. Ruthenian and Byelorussian (as well as the invented 'Ukrainian' identity) populations made up the minority in Kresy regions.

Also you would find that the cities with Jewish populations outnumbering that of Poles to be found immediately outside the borders of that map, in Tarnopol, Kaunas, Vilnius, Pinsk and others. (and even then, I am pretty sure Poles were just as numerous)

 

[Veles]

I am really at a loss to understand what you mean by this statement, are you being sarcistic?

This and everything I ever posted or will post on here is sarcasm, non-seriousness and mild and lighthearted trolling.

So 50% foreign majority in a city is ok by you? Nevermind the Jews, it could have been Palestinians or the Irish, for all I care.

Whatever Ruthenian origins some of these cities have had, is irrelevant.

O RLY?!

Who's to decide what's irrelevant and what's not?

Most of these cities have been controlled by Poland or inhabited by Poles for the last 700 years.

Does this argument also work for Poland, since it was a part of Russia for ~150 years?
And it's not 700, it's ~300 at best (1566-1772) or ~500 in case of Lvov.

Don't get me wrong, I love Poland. And this is of course up to you, but, really, you'd better forget about that Kresy bullsh*t. It was settled, established and populated by Rus', then conquered by Godless foreigners, than regained back. Perfectly fair. If you feel like conquering something, do a rightful thing and remeber about long lost Slavic land to the West.

Spoiler :

But, really, just leave it all as it is. Poland is one of the few countries in the world that actually have nice-looking borders (except the Silesian part).

 

[Arwon]

Guys this can't be that hard. Just use the oceans as your borders.

 

[del62]

So 50% foreign majority in a city is ok by you? Nevermind the Jews,

I dont see how the Jews there could have been considered foreigners, and surely the Russian policy of barring Jews from certain areas meant they would be more populous in other areas

 

[Ajidica]

Comparatively speaking, of course. Western Europeans had (mostly) settled their issues long before machine guns were invented. Europe further to the East and South had not due to the presence of absolutist, multi-ethnic, multi-religious empires (Austria-Hungary, Russia, Ottoman Turkey). The more fossilized the conflicts, the bloodier the resolution. In Czechoslovakia and Poland, it was relatively "mild", meaning we didn't kill all those Germans, we just expelled them in a "civilized" manner after "they" occupied us to "civilize" us. The Balkan re-adjustment was rudely interrupted by foreign powers a few times since these countries re-gained independence from Turkey/Austria and so the final round of settling accounts came in the 1990s.

The rise of ethnic nationalism is what prompted the collapse of Ottoman control in the Balkans, and it was the local Communist Dictators who kept it in check. Trying to blame the mess in the Balkans on the Ottomans would be like blaming the United Nations for not stopping WWII.

 

[Veles]

I dont see how the Jews there could have been considered foreigners, and surely the Russian policy of barring Jews from certain areas meant they would be more populous in other areas

We're talking about times when those lands were Polish. And, wait a minute, how are Jews not foreigners there? Those are core Slavic lands. Is it Nazareth or Bethlehem or Samaria? Nah, it's Podolia, not Judaea. Of course they were foreigners.

Or you have other versions? I'm just curious from what point of view could they be considered not foreign to those lands?

 

[del62]

We're talking about times when those lands were Polish. And, wait a minute, how are Jews not foreigners there? Those are core Slavic lands. Is it Nazareth or Bethlehem or Samaria? Nah, it's Podolia, not Judaea. Of course they were foreigners.

Or you have other versions? I'm just curious from what point of view could they be considered not foreign to those lands?

Perhaps because many of them if not most were born there

In Britain most of us do not consider those who come here and settle here foreigners, certainly not those who are born here.

 

[Tee Kay]

A multicultural society, however imperfect, is still preferable to a triumphalist homogenous nation-state that is achieved through mass murder and exile.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

You haven't been to Croatia, they got off better than we did because they did Oluja and Blijesak.

 

[Veles]

Perhaps because many of them if not most were born there

In Britain most of us do not consider those who come here and settle here foreigners, certainly not those who are born here.

But that's modern understanding of the issue. Back then, people's national identity was mostly defined by religion.

 

[Tee Kay]

You haven't been to Croatia, they got off better than we did because they did Oluja and Blijesak.

I rephrase: a multicultural society where people don't segregate or kill each other.

Bosnia may best be described as two-three newly-formed virulently nationalist nation-states in uncomfortably close proximity.

 

[TheLastOne36]

O RLY?!

Who's to decide what's irrelevant and what's not?

It's irrelevant because following the mongol invasions, Rusyn influences completely disappeared. There is a reason the people of these areas went from being a cultural hub of their own to adopting Polish culture and language, just like centuries later they adopted Russian culture.

Does this argument also work for Poland, since it was a part of Russia for ~150 years?
And it's not 700, it's ~300 at best (1566-1772) or ~400 in case of Lvov.

Lwow was under Polish control from around 1350, and was majority Polish&Saxon for a century before that. (660+ years).

Chelm and the area around it was annexed by Casimir the Great a decade after. (650 years) Likewise with Terebovl and the ancient Ruthenian capital of Halicz as well as the Volhynian capital Wlodzimierz.

Poles started settling en masse in Minsk, Vilnius, Kaunas and other places in the mid 15th century.

Luck and Pinsk were captured by Gediminas in the early 12th century (and later passed to Poland in the union)

Grodno was a Jewish city though, I'll give you that.

Don't get me wrong, I love Poland. And this is of course up to you, but, really, you'd better forget about that Kresy bullsh*t. It was settled, established and populated by Rus', then conquered by Godless foreigners, than regained back. Perfectly fair. If you feel like conquering something, do a rightful thing and remeber about long lost Slavic land to the West.

Spoiler :

But, really, just leave it all as it is. Poland is one of the few countries in the world that actually have nice-looking borders (except the Silesian part).

It was conquered and settled and made part of the Polish heartland, before you Russians came around and ruined everything. Out of curiosity, do Russians actually attribute the actions and achievements of the Rus as their own? As far as I am concerned Russia is a descendant state like Romania is to Rome.

I agree, all this nationalistic BS is that, BS . The only gripe to be found is in us losing the cities of Bresc and Lwow, both of which were part of the Polish heartland and in the case of Lwow, was the cultural center of the Polish nation. However, all that is in the past and I don't think you are likely to see any Pole seriously contest regaining those lands, unlike our Balkan brothers.

We don't really want them today either as they would be poor in relation to the rest of Poland. The former German territories with their already developed industrial cities and areas are much yummier.

 

[TheLastOne36]

I rephrase: a multicultural society where people don't segregate or kill each other.

Bosnia may best be described as two-three newly-formed virulently nationalist nation-states in uncomfortably close proximity.

AKA, a Balkan state.

 

[del62]

But that's modern understanding of the issue. Back then, people's national identity was mostly defined by religion.

I am not sure what modern understanding has got to do with it, if they had lived in that area for over a hundred years (probably much longer but I am not going into details) I dont see how you can consider them foreigners.

 

[Tee Kay]

Actually, two Balkans states masquerading as Belgium.

 

[Veles]

As far as I am concerned Russia is a descendant state like Romania is to Rome.

u kiddin' rite?

Out of curiosity, do Russians actually attribute the actions and achievements of the Rus as their own?

Russia is a direct legal ancestor to Rus'. The word "Russians" in Russian language means exactly "of the Rus'", that's how people refer to themselves to this day and ever since Rus' was established - "ludi Russkiye".

It was always a thing of Polish historiography to invent words like "Ruthenians", "Rosjane", "Moskali" etc to pretend that Russia is just a state that appeared out of the boom in Moscow and having nothing to do with Rus'. It was done, of course, to legitimize the Polish posessions in Russian lands and thier wars on Moscowy, who's leader (rightfully) insisted on the title "...of All the Rus".

The state of Rus' originated in Novgorod, which has always been Russian. From there Kiev was taken, which was a great capital for ~400 years and still is seen as a great symbolic city for all decendants of the Old Rus' (Belarus, Ukraine, Russia). After the Mongol dogs burned Kiev in mid-XIII century, all the nobility and clergy with all the treasures fled to the woodlands of what would later be know as Moscovy, but at those times was know as Zalesie, to the city of Vladimir. Metropolitan seat was officialy with all the cerimonies moved from Kiev to Vladimir and so was the capital. Velikiy stol was now officialy considered to be Vladimir rather than Kiev, so it technically ceased to be Kievan Rus' and became Vladimerian Rus' (both academic terms never actually used by people that lived back then), but it was still composed of the same people, nothing actually changed, except the South was burned to the ground. It was Vladimirean branch of Rurikid dynasty that established Moscow earlier in 1147 and later in XIV moved the capital there. Moscovy then was the nucleus aroung which Russian land was restored and expanded.

Ukraine bases much of its statehood (along with traditions, ceremonies and all that) on Zaporozhian Hetmanate of XV century, rather than Kievan Rus'. But of course, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia are equally legitimate decendants of the Old Rus'. It's just that only Russia retained the name, the language, the direct liturgical heritage etc. During the times of Ivan III the Great (15th century), when he married Sophia Palaiologos, a lot of the Byzantine etiquette was introduced, and among other things, the doule-headed eagle

and Ρωσία (Rossia) for Rus'. That's where Russia comes from, it's a Hellenisation of "Rus'".

 

[Virote_Considon]

I rephrase: a multicultural society where people don't segregate or kill each other.

His point was that a, as you put it, "triumphalist homogenous nation-state that is achieved through mass murder and exile", i.e. Croatia, is doing pretty good for itself.

I am not sure what modern understanding has got to do with it, if they had lived in that area for over a hundred years (probably much longer but I am not going into details) I dont see how you can consider them foreigners.

Why are you arguing serious points with this guy who has already told you he's not being serious?

Actually, two Balkans states masquerading as Belgium.

Last I heard, if Belgium were to break up, Flanders wouldn't be bombed by NATO back into the stone age.