Youtube maps of the future Balkans...

[Terxpahseyton]

I think he moved on to the natural consequences of human nature. I believe it is one of your favorites.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

I suppose that's why Tito ended up so popular. Whatever you thought of his politics, at least he wasn't trying to commit genocide.

Actually...not genocide but executions, land taking and the naked island later.

 

[Winner]

Then what was that "natural flow of history" stuff about?

Is it hair-splitting time already? Just for me, try reading it as "as history would most probably unfold otherwise, judging from the experience with other parts of the world".

I am surprised that you're so sceptical about what I said, I'd have thought you to be biased against the evil oppressive colonialist empires that are undoubtedly the cause of all the strife and misery post-colonial societies experience... Is it just because this is a case of oppression and suppression administered by a non-Western colonizer?

 

[Kyriakos]

Actually the oe was no colonizer, de-colonizer more like

But this is not about history of the region, more about extravagant maps about extracting future revenge

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not saying Tito's a nice guy, just that he never quite managed to butcher hundreds of thousands of civilians, which nudges him just a few inches ahead of his (viable) rivals.

Is it hair-splitting time already? Just for me, try reading it as "as history would most probably unfold otherwise, judging from the experience with other parts of the world".

"X." "Why X?" "UGH HAIRSPLITTING"

 

[Tee Kay]

If sectarian butchering and nationalist-driven warfare is bound to happen, then it better happen when the pinnacle of military technology is the arquebus, culverin, and a 6 metre pike and the population is 10 times smaller than today.

Is bound to happen. That's the problem. Hindsight is 20-20. To us it all seems inevitable; not so to people in the past.

With some luck, it will make people more averse to do the same later with AK-47s, machine guns, MLRS, jet fighters, and poison gas.

It didn't for the rest of Europe, that's for sure.

I don't - I am just being realistic. If you choose to believe in some multicultural utopia where enlightened leaders lead people to forget about their nature and live in mutual respect and peace forever, be my guest. It's just that something like that probably never occurred in recorded history, certainly not in a region as complicated as the Balkans.

There's a line between being realistic and just being, well, cruel.

I never once claimed to believe in a "multicultural utopia" or whatever you're trying to put into my mouth. I did say I'd rather live in a multicultural society, however imperfect, than make the society homogenous through unsavoury means (are there non-unsavoury means to homogenise a society?), and I stand by that.

And what, respect and peace and tolerance is not a part of human nature now. And I thought I'm pessimistic.

[insults removed] There are of course ways to solve conflicts in less brutal ways, but Turkey wasn't any more interested in doing that than the colonials powers were in Africa. Why? If the natives hate each other more than they hate you, all is fine and dandy.

There was Ottomanism; so that was something. The devshirme system might sort of count too. The millet system, by grouping the Empire's subjects into confessional blocs arguably encouraged erosion of local and ethnic identities, and could in theory have resulted in less divisions rather than more.

That there was a difference between the way the Ottomans treated their subjects and the way European powers treated their African possessions should not be surprising; for the Europeans, the African colonies were peripheries, possessions to be exploited for the benefit of the Mother Countries. For the Ottomans, Rumelia, Bulgaria and Macedonia weren't seen as colonies; they were the heartlands. (Interestingly, the most bitter conflicts among the Balkan peoples in modern times were between the Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks; in other words, frontier peoples, Serbs and Bosniaks on the Ottoman side, Croats on the Austrian side).

 

[del62]

Of course the Ottomans were responsible for their own genocide of which Hitler said "Who after all speaks of the anihilisation of the Armenians" something which modern day Turkey still hasnt come to terms with,

 

[Tee Kay]

Of course the Ottomans were responsible for their own genocide of which Hitler said "Who after all speaks of the anihilisation of the Armenians" something which modern day Turkey still hasnt come to terms with,

Just a normal thing on the route to civilisation.

The Armenian Genocide was just the most heinous thing to come out of the Ottoman Collapse. There were massacres of Arabs, Greeks, Bulgars, Albanians, Slavs, Kurds, and those groups also killed Turks and each other, and before that, the massacres and exile of Tatars and Circassians in areas conquered by the Russian Empire. The unwanted survivors were then deported when the components of the Empire declared themselves independent.

That said, the Ottoman Empire lasted six centuries, and for most of that time it was a (relatively) peaceful multiethnic, multifaith empire that did not see large-scale civil wars or intercommunal violence, and its collapse was a complex process that could not simply be reduced to "different ethnic groups succumbed to their primal instincts and butchered each other".

 

[Traitorfish]

Of course the Ottomans were responsible for their own genocide of which Hitler said "Who after all speaks of the anihilisation of the Armenians" something which modern day Turkey still hasnt come to terms with,

That was conducted by the Young Turks, who are far from representative of Ottoman cultural policy. Since around the mid-19th century, the Ottomans had worked pretty hard to create a civic nationalism, and would have seen that sort of ethnic violence as quite contrary to both the well-being of the Ottoman state and to all good sense. The turn towards ethnic nationalism was as much a divergence from tradition in Turkey as the turn towards militant anti-Semitism was in Germany, representative of the weakness rather than strength of Ottoman institutions.

(edit: sorta x-post with Tailless.)

 

[Domen]

Since around the mid-19th century, the Ottomans had worked pretty hard to create a civic nationalism,

And after getting rid of Armenians, the goal of creating a civic nationalism became much easier to achieve.

BTW - what the heck is this "civic nationalism"? Is it "my country is the best, it is better than the rest"?

something which modern day Turkey still hasnt come to terms with,

The splendid US & A also hasn't come to terms with it & still doesn't recognize this genocide - because Turkey is their strategic military partner.

 

[Traitorfish]

What? No. Do you even know what "civic nationalism" is?

 

[Domen]

I don't know - that's why I asked (see above). We don't use this term in Poland yet (you know, this backward Eastern Europe).

I think it is "something we invented to make ourselves look better than those old school bad Eastern European non-civic nationalists".

Am I right?

 

[Tee Kay]

That was conducted by the Young Turks, who are far from representative of Ottoman cultural policy. Since around the mid-19th century, the Ottomans had worked pretty hard to create a civic nationalism, and would have seen that sort of ethnic violence as quite contrary to both the well-being of the Ottoman state and to all good sense. The turn towards ethnic nationalism was as much a divergence from tradition in Turkey as the turn towards militant anti-Semitism was in Germany, representative of the weakness rather than strength of Ottoman institutions.

(edit: sorta x-post with Tailless.)

Exactly. "Weak" might actually be an understatement with regards to Ottoman institutions at the start of the First World War.

The Ottoman statesmen of the mid-19th century tried very hard to create a civic nationalism and did enjoy partial success for a while. Even the Young Turks, as a group, included some genuine Ottomanist or secular liberals, as well as Christians and Jews (one of the fathers of Turkism was actually a Jew from Selanik), and flirted with an alliance with the Armenian Revolutionary Federation for a time.

 

[del62]

Where the Hamidian massacres part of this civic nationalism

apart from this it is far to easy to say the young turks in an attempt to absolve the Ottoman empire

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't know - that's why I asked (see above). We don't use this term in Poland yet (you know, this backward Eastern Europe).

I think it is "something we invented to make ourselves look better than those old school bad Eastern European non-civic nationalists".

Am I right?

Not even remotely, no. "Civic nationalism" means a nationalism based on shared adherence to a certain set of political and ethical principles, rather than a shared culture, ethnicity or religion. One of the most famous projects of civic nationalism was in fact located in Eastern Europe- the Soviet Union, which in at least some periods attempted to constructed a generalised "Soviet" identity based on certain political principles, compatible with various regional and linguistic identities, so that one could be a Russian Soviet, a Lithuanian Soviet or a Georgian Soviet.

 

[Winner]

Is bound to happen. That's the problem. Hindsight is 20-20. To us it all seems inevitable; not so to people in the past.

If it's happening all around you because of things which are in abundance in your society, there's a good chance it will happen to you as well. Oh God, I just invented the wheel! Oh no, damn, I just stated the obvious.

It didn't for the rest of Europe, that's for sure.

It did. Certainly with religious wars - except Northern Ireland (which arguably is another case of a conflict frozen by the presence of an empire), Western Europe had lost most of its appetite for religious warfare after the reformation wars. Too bad nationalism hadn't come earlier, perhaps they'd have beaten it out of each other sooner and with lower overall casualties as well, instead of having to go through 2 hyper-devastating world wars to get to realize that it sucks.

There's a line between being realistic and just being, well, cruel.

Oh Christ, here we go. I am sorry you don't like how the world is, I sympathize, really, but that doesn't make what I am saying wrong (not necessarily).

I never once claimed to believe in a "multicultural utopia" or whatever you're trying to put into my mouth.

I must have picked that up from you.

I did say I'd rather live in a multicultural society, however imperfect, than make the society homogenous through unsavoury means (are there non-unsavoury means to homogenise a society?), and I stand by that.

And I'd rather if robots did our chores for us for free so that I could do all the things I *like* to do all day long, without having to care about money. Also, I'd like to go to Mars, and speaking of history, I'd rather if WW2 had never happened.

See? We all have our wishes and preferences.

The problem is that I am talking about what would most probably have happened (broadly speaking), while you're presenting your wishful thinkings as a sort of counter-argument. Well, if you didn't mean it like that, please make that clear next time.

And what, respect and peace and tolerance is not a part of human nature now. And I thought I'm pessimistic.

Modern ideas about how people should live with each other are just that - modern ideas. If you approached 14th, 15th or 16th century people with them, they would think you mad, likely kill you in some horrible way, and then go on merrily massacring each other as their contemporary mindsets compelled them to. Different religion? Die. Or be my slave. Or pay tribute. Or hide so that I don't see your filthy face around.

What I said was... oh, you know what? Go back and read it.

There was Ottomanism; so that was something. The devshirme system might sort of count too. The millet system, by grouping the Empire's subjects into confessional blocs arguably encouraged erosion of local and ethnic identities, and could in theory have resulted in less divisions rather than more.

Are you kidding?

As for the attempt to create a political nation of the inhabitants of the empire... "Oh, we're sorry we've oppressed you for the past 500 years. We're sorry, okay? Now, let's all call ourselves X and have the same rights, and all will be fine forever, promise!"

Gods... I wonder why it never worked... perhaps because the empires usually did that only when they were obviously crumbling and grasping at any chance to save themselves. Austria-Hungary is another nice example of this.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think that Austria-Hungary can be described as "crumbling" in the 1860s.

 

[Lone Wolf]

In XX century, the Balkan states (excluding Ottomans for now) had their violent conflicts during the Balkan Wars, WWI, WWII, and the Yugoslavian Breakup (Bosnian civil war included).

During the same century, the Western European states had their violent conflicts in WWI, WWII, the Troubles, and maybe you can add the Spanish Civil War there as well.

Not that much of a difference. The notability of the Yugoslavian Breakup skews the perception here.

I definitely would not say that Turkish rule didn't have any harmful consequences for the culture and development of peoples they conquered. Foreign conquest is rarely a good thing (watch the whole CFC gasp in wisdom of these poignant words). But it didn't make the Balkans omg-so-much-more-violent then Western Europe.

I guess the militant nationalism of "just-gained independence" state ideologues played a role in Balkan violence, but that has more to do with recent independence rather then with the Ottomans as such.

"Oh, we're sorry we've oppressed you for the past 500 years. We're sorry, okay? Now, let's all call ourselves X and have the same rights, and all will be fine forever, promise!"

Well, the Ottoman elites also oppressed the Muslim peoples as well. Though I do think that by the time Ottomanist ideology took hold, ethnic nationalism was entrenched enough in Europe to make its success unlikely.

 

[Kozmos]

I think you are all overlooking the fact that the Serbs in charge at the time were just giant dicks and diverted a lot of money made by all the FR of Y to Serbia and used lots of secret policing to keep basic freedoms down. Of course there was a lot of nationalism involved in the Wars when people were just fed up with all that and the whole Greater Serbia shlock didn't help.

 

[Virote_Considon]

The role of the Ustaše during WW2 probably stoked up ethnic tensions more than anything else

The situation in the late 80s/early 90s wasn't really rooted in the hostilities of WW2, I'd say. That goes on all sides. I'll elaborate a bit below, once I've dealt with the rest.

Why did you omit Romania!?

There were plenty of Orthodox states omitted. Generally though, Russia, Bulgaria and Serbia are seen as the 'big three' Slavic Orthodox states, so they're not just brothers but Slavic brothers, and Greeks to them often represent the Byzantine lineage their churches all share, hence are often included.

But this is not about history of the region, more about extravagant maps about extracting future revenge

But we're having fu-un

But either when I come back from the pub tonight, or maybe tomorrow, I will make a 'future Balkans'-esque map for your enjoyment.

BTW - what the heck is this "civic nationalism"? Is it "my country is the best, it is better than the rest"?

Nationalism based on citizenship rather than ethnicity (so long as citizenship itself is not based pretty much solely upon ethnicity of course). The kind of "you're born here, you're from here, no matter where your folks are from" nationalism instead of the "your parents were originally from another land. You too must be from that land not really this" type nationalism.

All nationalism is based upon a shared culture. It's just that the under civic nationalism, the basis for the groups' belonging isn't due to ethnic or religious membership, but to the culture of ideals.

As an example, I'd count as a civic nationalist: I believe that European culture is based on both ethnic (specifically linguistic) and religious roots to an extent, but no membership in either is a requirement for belonging to the culture or the European nation. The roots of the culture are a guideline; the culture and the nation itself are inclusive not exclusive.

I don't think that Austria-Hungary can be described as "crumbling" in the 1860s.

Following the Austro-Prussian war, absolutely. But only for a couple of years at most.

I think you are all overlooking the fact that the Serbs in charge at the time were just giant dicks and diverted a lot of money made by all the FR of Y to Serbia and used lots of secret policing to keep basic freedoms down. Of course there was a lot of nationalism involved in the Wars when people were just fed up with all that and the whole Greater Serbia shlock didn't help.

Yes and no. You give me the perfect lead in to what I originally wanted to say back up top
__________________

Basically, the grievances boil down to three areas. Economic; the extent of devolution; and most importantly in my opinion, a certain Mr. Milošević.

Economically, by the 80s Yugoslavia had hit a bit of a slump due to the limitations posed by their brand of planned economy and also their relative international isolation in the immediate vicinity. The bulk of this recession was affecting the Eastern and Southern lands - Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro. Slovenia and Croatia were doing particularly good for themselves.

This meant that Croatia and Slovenia were funneling money to the rest of Yugoslavia, with general sentiment feeling that it was just being sucked into a black hole (see: German et al. resentment to bailing out Greece). Although they wanted some more autonomy in return for this, the Croats and Slovenes were still generally placated by the Constitution of 1974.

The Constitution of 1974 was itself a bone of contention for the Serbs because in addition to granting more autonomy to the other Socialist Republics it also granted autonomy to two regions of Serbia (Kosovo and Voyvodina) who (at least in the case of the latter) hadn't particularly been advocating it - thus the Serbs were feeling punished by this.

Then we come to Mr. Milošević again. Slobodan took the resentment felt by the Serbs at their "losses" in the '74 Constitution and combined it with the economic resentments of the Croats and Slovenes to establish a "threat" against Serbia, which he and his cronies used to manipulate their way into power of SR Serbia. They (he and his cronies) responded to the threat by reigning in power towards SR Serbia, replacing the heads of the Kosovo and Vojvodina provinces with close Serb associates and forming a coup in Montenegro to do the same. (Thus for anyone keeping tabs at home, 4 out of the 8 most powerful people in Yugoslavia were now Serbs, with 1 Croat, 1 Slovene, 1 Bosniak and 1 Macedonian). He used the anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo to specifically incite hatred against the to-this-point unconfrontational Albanian Muslims in Kosovo. This somehow died down (which was not good enough for Milošević and cronies) so they further embarked on a campaign of inciting tensions.

By this point (late 80s), there was much talk of independence from the non-Serb SR's who were quite rightly concerned. Mixed with the pro-democracy atmosphere of the 'Fall of Communism' occurring throughout Europe, Milošević et al. relented and allowed multi-party elections to take place. When the inevitable vote for change happened he responded by... Centralizing more power and essentially telling the other parties to go stuff themselves.

Even at this point, the Yugoslav breakup had no reason to be so bloody. Two things made it turn this way: The first was Milošević's preemptive declaring of Martial law and swamping Serb military police throughout the whole of Croatia. The second was hatching a plan with the Croat leadership to divide Bosnia between themselves - at this point in time, Bosnia itself had kept out of these affairs and wasn't really considering independence until ~'91.

So yeah, bloody Yugoslav wars: Milošević's fault.