Kosovo: Russia considering “last resort” military option

[Crvena zvezda]

Originally Posted by Porcelain

Serbs are always whining about something and people see them as defenders of their nation ergo the defenders of all nationalists but they are just a bunch of whiners with pretenses on other nation territories (by this i mean Croatia and Bosnia). Kosovo was always theirs I cannot say anything against that, but I'm affraid it's not up to them to decide.

This is partially true. Croatians (at least those in Slavonia and Zagorje) have a different mentality. Serbs (as well as Greeks and Bulgarians) place a high emphasis on places where they lived that were important to their survival during years of occupation. For Serbs, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Krajina, Vojvodina, Slavonia, Timisaora in Romania, Montenegro, Dubrovnik and FYROM all have historical significance (just how for bulgarians southern Serbia, FYROM, and northern Greece have significance). Well anyways, it's not just that but Serbs outside of Serbia (especially those in Bosnia and ?Krajina) have this strange attitude and are always contradictory when it comes to the national question. I find most Serbian nationalists idiot, since most of them are from Bosnia and Croatia and have idiotic views.

I don't support Serb claims on foriegn territory, with a few exceptions. Unlike Serbs from Croatia I never supported their demands for secession from Croatia since I linked it directly to the question of Kosovo, the so-called Krajina was like Croatia's Kosovo it is significant to Croatia's history just as much as Kosovo is to ares and my view is if Serbs in Krajina have the right to secede to Croatia then Serbia should not object if albanians wanted the same.

When it comes to Bosnia my view is that it is a land that should be split between Serbs and Croats, as the population was Serb or Croat until the Turks converted them. My view on FYROM is that they should not be called "Macedonians" and that their background is Serb and Bulgarian and that instead that area should be split eventually some day between Serbs and Bulgarians (most neutral historical documents don't even mention the ethniticity of the region just that the inhabitants knew they were Slav and that they had some similarities to Serbs and Bulgarians).

On Montenegro, my view is that they are Serbs. But that their are cultural differences between them and Serbs and that in any unified state this should be acknowledged.

When it comes to Dalmatia. I don't really care, it was important in Serbia's history that's it. Timisaoroa, same. Dubrovnik and Slavona, same. Serbs should acknowledge that they are significant in are history and not take it further. With the mentality of Serbs in Krajina and Bosnia they'd say oh it was Serbs so it must be Serb again. But my view is it is not the cradle of our civilization (like kosovo), the cradles of most nations should stay there, for any other historically significant area I don't really care because instead of looking at once was one should look at the future especially since demographics of areas change over time.

[Heretik]

And once again, serbs are calling upon their historical borders. All the way from Tokio to New York.

Remember kids: "Where there's a serb there's serbia".

Dalmatia and Slavonia were never parts of serbia and will never be.

Tako kazemo ja i moj kalas.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Crvena zvezda

This is partially true. Croatians (at least those in Slavonia and Zagorje) have a different mentality. Serbs (as well as Greeks and Bulgarians) place a high emphasis on places where they lived that were important to their survival during years of occupation. For Serbs, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Krajina, Vojvodina, Slavonia, Timisaora in Romania, Montenegro, Dubrovnik and FYROM all have historical significance (just how for bulgarians southern Serbia, FYROM, and northern Greece have significance). Well anyways, it's not just that but Serbs outside of Serbia (especially those in Bosnia and ?Krajina) have this strange attitude and are always contradictory when it comes to the national question. I find most Serbian nationalists idiot, since most of them are from Bosnia and Croatia and have idiotic views.

I don't support Serb claims on foriegn territory, with a few exceptions. Unlike Serbs from Croatia I never supported their demands for secession from Croatia since I linked it directly to the question of Kosovo, the so-called Krajina was like Croatia's Kosovo it is significant to Croatia's history just as much as Kosovo is to ares and my view is if Serbs in Krajina have the right to secede to Croatia then Serbia should not object if albanians wanted the same.

When it comes to Bosnia my view is that it is a land that should be split between Serbs and Croats, as the population was Serb or Croat until the Turks converted them. My view on FYROM is that they should not be called "Macedonians" and that their background is Serb and Bulgarian and that instead that area should be split eventually some day between Serbs and Bulgarians (most neutral historical documents don't even mention the ethniticity of the region just that the inhabitants knew they were Slav and that they had some similarities to Serbs and Bulgarians).

On Montenegro, my view is that they are Serbs. But that their are cultural differences between them and Serbs and that in any unified state this should be acknowledged.

When it comes to Dalmatia. I don't really care, it was important in Serbia's history that's it. Timisaoroa, same. Dubrovnik and Slavona, same. Serbs should acknowledge that they are significant in are history and not take it further. With the mentality of Serbs in Krajina and Bosnia they'd say oh it was Serbs so it must be Serb again. But my view is it is not the cradle of our civilization (like kosovo), the cradles of most nations should stay there, for any other historically significant area I don't really care because instead of looking at once was one should look at the future especially since demographics of areas change over time.

Many nations have nostalgic remembrances of where their ancestors lived in the past. There is often some sentimentality attached to it. I have noticed that phenomenon among Hungarians as well, regarding Transylvania and Slovakia. Nor (some) Croats are totally immune to that ("Hrvatska do Drine" and similar). There is nothing wrong with that as long as it stays just a romantic inspiration. The problem arises when it is transformed into some political-military project to restore "old glories" (whether they be real or fictional).

[Crvena zvezda]

Originally Posted by Porcelain

And once again, serbs are calling upon their historical borders. All the way from Tokio to New York.

Remember kids: "Where there's a serb there's serbia".

Dalmatia and Slavonia were never parts of serbia and will never be.

Tako kazemo ja i moj kalas.

No. Only the idiots from Bosnia and Croatia. And I never mentioned calling for those bordrers. My view is Serbia should remain within it's current borders, Republika Srpska should be independent (I think it would be against Serbia's interest for the moment and in the near future for Republika Srpska to be part of the same state as us), and Montenegro should be what ever it's people choose (independent or not). My view regarding FYROM as I stated was that maybe some time in the future their nation should be split between Serbs and Bulgarians, but until then I have nothing with having nothing against allowing them independence since I'd prefer that they decide themselves.

I never said they were. I only said they have some historical significants to Serbs, I never said they were ever part of Serbia. Your twisting my words.