Independence [Archive] - Motorsport Forums

gadjo_dilo

18th February 2008, 10:34

Is the independence already approved by UN? .

In fact we are witnesess of two crucial events: the birth of a state and the death of UN.
From now on the whole system of international jurisdiction and the system of prevention and reglementation of conflicts represented by UN and Security Council are abolished.
The birth of the new state occured outside a Security Council decision and UN proved its incapacity to come to a negociated solution. More than that the organization was ignored in a crucial moment.
Who'll take advantage of this?
The impotence of UN may show us we should take measures. "Maybe" new actors should come to solve global security. Or "maybe" we needn't anymore the decisions of Security Council to interfere in situations defined as " iminent humanitarian catastrophies "
"Maybe" from now on it will be enough to have only the approval of a few powerful states to get to independence....
Sorry guys, don't want to spoil anybody's romantic feelings abut independece but in this special case for me it's obvious that Republic of Kosovo is not a happy ending but an unhappy prelude.

BDunnell

18th February 2008, 11:01

In fact we are witnesess of two crucial events: the birth of a state and the death of UN.
From now on the whole system of international jurisdiction and the system of prevention and reglementation of conflicts represented by UN and Security Council are abolished.
The birth of the new state occured outside a Security Council decision and UN proved its incapacity to come to a negociated solution. More than that the organization was ignored in a crucial moment.
Who'll take advantage of this?
The impotence of UN may show us we should take measures. "Maybe" new actors should come to solve global security. Or "maybe" we needn't anymore the decisions of Security Council to interfere in situations defined as " iminent humanitarian catastrophies "
"Maybe" from now on it will be enough to have only the approval of a few powerful states to get to independence....
Sorry guys, don't want to spoil anybody's romantic feelings abut independece but in this special case for me it's obvious that Republic of Kosovo is not a happy ending but an unhappy prelude.

Tell me, did you support the independence of Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Bosnia from Yugoslavia? Yes, the aftermath was bloody, but it had to happen.

In the case of Kosovo, as stated by a British Labour MEP on the radio this morning, the idea of Vladimir Putin becoming any sort of arbiter of international law is most unpalatable.

leopard

18th February 2008, 11:07

I think UN is an international body that is supposed to facilitate any international conflict among its member, and the rest of the world. The institution isn't party to blame for any failure and its impotence solving the problem, but some countries who undertake their interest by the name of UN and disobeying anything once they found discordance against their interest, who should be responsible for its impotency.

The non permanent security council must play their role in beautiful way, they have to accommodate international and humanity resolution, but on the other hand as far as possible to make decision not in cross of nations the biggest power holder.

I think we have to distinguish those deserve independence or separatism movement. A region with people historically and ethnically different and or treated differently because of difference of ideology I think deserve the independence and have its own right to determine their future.

Mark

18th February 2008, 11:40

The problem at the moment with the UN as I understand it is that any permanent member can veto any proposal, even if supported by every other member, which can't be right.

gadjo_dilo

18th February 2008, 12:36

Tell me, did you support the independence of Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Bosnia from Yugoslavia? Yes, the aftermath was bloody, but it had to happen.

So it have to happen the independence of Kurdistan but for a reason that I miss ( :laugh :) USA and EU countries dislike the idea. And they are not ready either to recognize the independence of the turkish part of Cyprus.

Back to your question: I couldn't support something I didn't understand. More than that I don't know why it had to happen. First of all it's my background:
1. I'm of aromanian ( or macedo-romanian ) origin, this population is spread through the balkans: Greece, Bulgaria, Albania and the FYRM . We've never had our state although there were times when we were the majority ethnic in that area and we don't pretend to ever have one. Many of us were already asimililated in these countries and generally we aren't recognized as minority. Due to ethnic persecutions many of us emigrated from Greece at the begining of 20 th century to a bulgarian area who for a short period of time was part of Romania. Then bugarians got it back and my family was forced to get established in Romania. Whether I like it or not I was born in Romania and I consider myself romanian and respect the laws of this country. And my cousins who remained in Greece consider themselves greeks. At the same time I'm sure I can live very well everywhere in the balkans, there are many things we have in common although we are either greeks or slavs or latin, etc.
Sorry for this long digression but i wanted to underline that in the balkanic area there is a puzzle of ethnics who generally get on.
2. On the other hand as a romanian citizen I believe the union of the 3 romanian principates is probably the most important thing that happened in our history and mades us stronger. Although until the end of XIX th century and the begining of theXX th, Transylavania, Wallachia and Moldova developed separately and were shared by 3 diferent empires the feeling we are the same nation was always very strong and apart from some hungarian assholes nobody want a separation. As a result I can't understand why Yugoslavia had to divide. They were all southern slavs and talked the same language, they share a culture (and still vote for each other on Eurovision :laugh: .), they were an example of welfare and were united a few times in history. Then where did the need of separation come from? . OK, I admit Croatia and Slovenia used to be organized as kingdoms in the past but the others? In the bosniac conflict there were 3 parts involved: serbs, croats and the muslims. Who is the bosniac nation? The same thing is with FYRM, they were never a distinctive nation and this republic will probably have some trouble in the future as it's inhabited by 3 ethnics.

And let's come to the new state. A small state with the population of my hometown, with 45% rate of unemployment, with no resources and infrastructure, without foreign investments and any developed economic branch ( well, they say that in this region the organized crime is almost an industry...) and with a leader whose past remembers the one of Yasser Arafat. How will this survive?

FrankenSchwinn

18th February 2008, 14:04

i'm reading independent people right now, pretty good book.....

Mark

18th February 2008, 14:15

The balkans has been a mess in general for a long time. I talked to someone a long while ago who fled the fighting there and he said that everything was fine with the different ethnic groups living together then came the day when people would go into their next door neighbours house and murder everyone there because they were a different ethnicity,, crazy.

anthonyvop

18th February 2008, 15:52

Is the independence already approved by UN?
Who cares? If the people of Kosovo decide to be an independent country it is a problem between Serbia and Kosovo.

The thought of the UN doing anything is scarey.

BDunnell

18th February 2008, 16:45

Who cares? If the people of Kosovo decide to be an independent country it is a problem between Serbia and Kosovo.

Clearly, the conflict of the 1990s — a war literally 'on Europe's doorstep', with effects that went wider than individual country borders — passed you by.

The thought of the UN doing anything is scarey.

I can think of worse things. Regime change, anyone?

BDunnell

18th February 2008, 16:48

By the way, gadjo_dilo, thank you for a very good and thought-provoking response. I still don't really agree entirely with you, as I believe that the process of separation became inevitable, but I do agree that it was a shame it had to happen, especially in the way it did. I am also of the same opinion as you regarding the desperate state Kosovo finds itself in.

Drew

18th February 2008, 17:47

Becoming independant and then joining up to the EU, seems almost odd.

When does a country become independant then, when <70% of the world has recognised it? What's to stop Scotland, Catalunya et al doing the same thing?

BDunnell

18th February 2008, 18:45

Becoming independant and then joining up to the EU, seems almost odd.

It is still an independent sovereign state though.

When does a country become independant then, when <70% of the world has recognised it? What's to stop Scotland, Catalunya et al doing the same thing?

If the people of those areas want it and can make sensible, informed decisions, then let them. In both cases, I feel it would be a mistake, but each to their own.

Magnus

18th February 2008, 19:42

Interesting reading there Gadjo_Dilo! I have always had big difficulties in grasping the ethnic and nation-questions of the balkan countries and in the south eastern parts of Europe.
Most swedish people are rather un-nationalistic, and tend to celebrate more when Norway have their 17 of may rather then on our own 6 of june. I guess we are a bit yealous ;)
In the end though I must say that I can understand if people feels pride in their home-country, but on the other hand it probaly also depends on how old the nation is, and how long ago you had to fight for it. Sweden have been very lame, or wise, depending upon how you see it, and not been involved in warfare for almost 200 years. I think this have brought along a very little interest in what really constitutes a state.
Norway, for example, was invaded by the germans in WWII, and furthermore recently celebrated their 100 years anniversary of freedom from the union with Sweden, which was abandoned in 1905. Something many swedes regret today... Funnily enough Sweden had a clausul in the contract which stated that they could oppose to the annulment of the union until 2005. Pity no one did... Put maybe that would have been a somewhat sensitive question :D Anyway, this have naturally led to the norwegians being far more patriotic then the swedish people.

A healthy world, I believe, is a world which moves towards disregarding state-formations, and more look to peoples needs, more than states needs(that is people bond by something else then agreements on paper..). As long as our world is defined by fire-power it is a long way to go though...

It is also interesting that country after country line up to be a part of the EU. I wonder how this will look in a hundred years or so. First you kill some people in order to defend your country, then a few years later your children apply in order to make the country you fought for a part of a big union. Will there come a day when we look at the states of Europe as nothing more then beurocratical devices required for tax-control? Will there come a day when we laugh at the old patriots who gave their lives for their right to a state, and a piece of recogniced land, or will patriotisme once again flourish?

Regarding Kosovo I feel glad for their happiness, but I am also a bit worried about their possibilities in the long run. It is not a rich country we are talking about. Poor people in combination with patriotism have proven an unhealthy mix before, even more so since the serbs are not all that happy with the new country.
I wish them all the best for the future, and keep my fingers crossed.

Drew

18th February 2008, 20:17

If the people of those areas want it and can make sensible, informed decisions, then let them. In both cases, I feel it would be a mistake, but each to their own.

But what legally has to happen? This is what confuses me.

BDunnell

18th February 2008, 20:32

But what legally has to happen? This is what confuses me.

There is confusion over this, hence the disagreements between different parties over Kosovo.

anthonyvop

18th February 2008, 21:02

But what legally has to happen? This is what confuses me.
Legally?

LOL

Here it is in a nutshell.....Kosovo declares independence. The rest of the world pays off Serbia not to get pissed off.

Rollo

18th February 2008, 21:17

Becoming independant and then joining up to the EU, seems almost odd.

I think that the idea of a country of less than a square mile is also "odd" but one of those exists within the city of Rome.

What's to stop Scotland, Catalunya et al doing the same thing?

Catalunya is tehcnically known as an "autonomous community" which is kind of like Scotland in that some civil law does exist within its borders but things like taxation and the defence forces are part of a national entity.
Scotland itself is a "constituent country" which is a term that doesn't really have a definition.

What's to stop them? Not much really. It would take a few legal instruments such as repealing the Act of Unions in the case of Scotland, but if enough impetus was shown it could be done fairly smoothly.

Specifically with Scotland, there is a set of triggers for indpendance relating to the adoption of the Euro; mainly because it would cripple the Scottish banks and therefore the economic stability of the country.

Camelopard

18th February 2008, 21:22

[quote="anthonyvop"]Who cares? If the people of Kosovo decide to be an independent country it is a problem between Serbia and Kosovo.quote]

You obviously care, seeing as you bothered to read this thread and make your normal carefully thought out response to it. :confused:

Camelopard

18th February 2008, 21:24

Who cares? If the people of Kosovo decide to be an independent country it is a problem between Serbia and Kosovo.

You obviously care, seeing as you bothered to read this thread and make your normal carefully thought out response to it. :confused:

jens

18th February 2008, 22:22

BDunnell

18th February 2008, 22:39

Actually for me it's hard to make a proper statement here as Kosovo's (or Kosova's as they write now) case creates an interesting situation here in Estonia too. From the plus side we have fought for independence and know, how much does it mean for some folks to become independent.

On the other hand most of the Kosovo's people are Albanians and many have asked that why won't they unite with Albania. Estonian government has said that they'll recognize Kosovo's independence, but if we look more closely, we can see a similar situation arising here too. A neighbour's Russian minority in our country (as neighbour's Albanian minority in Serbia), who mostly live in Eastern part in our country. On Sunday a Russian grouping here declared that by the example of Kosovo Eastern Estonia should be given independence too. Therefore IMO at least for us it's a bit dangerous to recognize Kosovo quickly and we shouldn't rush, but more likely wait.

But while lots of examples of other possible breakaway factions have been cited in the last few days — the Scots, the Basques, the Corsicans, the one you mention — all are different because, discounting the ETA campaign of terror in Spain, none have been the subject of a recent war, and none seem as likely to declare independence as Kosovo has since the late 1990s. (By the way, am I the only person to have detected some revisionist history in recent days? During the war in 1999, there was a very large body of public opinion in Kosovo along the lines of hating NATO for its bombing, but hating Milosevic more. Now we are told that there are banners in praise of NATO on the streets of Kosovo. How times change...)

The intervention of Vladimir Putin in this one is troubling, too, for while he may have a point about the legal status of the independent Kosovo, his way of dealing with would-be breakaways has been clear for all to see in Chechnya and I don't think that's a model for the Serbs to follow.

Rollo

18th February 2008, 22:44

It stands to reason that the Serbian government should be so tetchy about recoginising Kosovian independance. They stand to lose a fair slab of money through lost taxation revenues.

I find it curious that Serbia's minister of Kosovo, Slobodan Samardzic calls this a "breach of international law", and conveniently ignores the fact that with a 90% turnout for elections on referenda of independence in '91 & '92 Serbia declared them null and void; thus making a mockery of "democracy".

On Sunday a Russian grouping here declared that by the example of Kosovo Eastern Estonia should be given independence too. Therefore IMO at least for us it's a bit dangerous to recognize Kosovo quickly and we shouldn't rush, but more likely wait.

Well this is a broader question. Would the people of "Eastern Estonia" vote for it if a referendum was held? Which maakonnad are we actually talking about here? Could Idu-Viru or Polva logically support themselves? Somehow I doubt it.

Personally I think that the Republic of Kosovo in inherantly a good idea, since it's ethnically different to Serbia for the most part, and when they aren't even on amicable terms, then rule by another state will always be resented.

BDunnell

18th February 2008, 22:52

It stands to reason that the Serbian government should be so tetchy about recoginising Kosovian independance. They stand to lose a fair slab of money through lost taxation revenues.

That's an interesting thought, though I also wonder how much of a drain Kosovo was on Serbia's resources, given its poor economic state. Presumably, also, the revenue gained from taxation in Kosovo wouldn't have been that great per head of population as a result of the low incomes there, though for some reason I don't know enough about the Serbian taxation system to be sure!

BDunnell

18th February 2008, 22:53

Personally I think that the Republic of Kosovo in inherantly a good idea, since it's ethnically different to Serbia for the most part, and when they aren't even on amicable terms, then rule by another state will always be resented.

And, one would hope, the new Kosovar government will respect the rights of the Serb minority and not make the same mistakes in this regard that Serb governments of the past have made in Kosovo itself. This will be a key to the success of independence.

jens

18th February 2008, 22:58

Well this is a broader question. Would the people of "Eastern Estonia" vote for it if a referendum was held? Which maakonnad are we actually talking about here? Could Idu-Viru or Polva logically support themselves? Somehow I doubt it.

I should have been more precise in my post and talked about "Northeastern Estonia". Actually hard to give any percentage in case of a referendum. Although for example in Narva arguably about 90% are Russians, then it seems that at least some amount of Russians are satisfied with living in this state.

Also with the Kosovo issue the problems of recognizing states like Southern Ossetia and Abkhazia arise.

Camelopard

18th February 2008, 23:08

One of the main reasons Serbia is against the indepenence of Kosovo is that it regards the battle at "Kosovo Fields" as a defining moment in the beginning of their nation even though the Serbs were defeated.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kosovo)

A small quote:

"The Battle of Kosovo is regarded to this day as a milestone in the Serbian national identity. It remained a symbol of Serbian patriotism and desire for independence for centuries under Ottoman rule. The Battle of Kosovo has had recent impact in the Kosovo War cultural relations remain tense as the majority Muslim Albanians claim that their majority should grant them the right to independence while the minority Serbs claim that, partly due to the famous battle, Kosovo is still an important and integral part of Serbia."

The speech given by Milosevic at Kosovo Fields in 1989 indictated that Serbia under no circumstances would relinquish their control over this area.

Another main reason is that the Serbs reguard themselves as doing Europe a favour by stemming the flow of Muslims into greater Europe.

Part of his speech on 28th June 1989:

"Six centuries ago, Serbia heroically defended itself in the field of Kosovo, but it also defended Europe. Serbia was at that time the bastion that defended the European culture, religion, and European society in general."

At the time a friend of mine who was born in Australia of Yugoslavian heritage said to me, "Serbia will never ever let Kosovo become independent as it is too important to Serbian history" I must point out that whilst her mother is ethnically Serbian, her father is ethnically a Bosnian Muslim, so she can't be seen as having any bias.

Camelopard

18th February 2008, 23:26

I was going to correct my spelling mistakes (damn 15 minute limit!), but ran out of time, I was also going to say that the speech given by Milosevic in 1989 was alledgedly given to 1 million people.

Camelopard

18th February 2008, 23:51

So why isn't Somaliland recognised a separate county?

They broke away from Somalia following the collaspe of the central government in 1991. They have a democratically elected government, their own currency and passports and are a very stable country in a traditionally volatile area. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somaliland)

Lets look at West Papua, alledgedly part of Indonesia, sharing nothing in common with that country as Papuans are Melalesian and not Asian, sold out by the west and in particular the US in the late sixties due to the concern of communism and the domino effect.
Indonesia will not give up West Papua due to the amount of natural resources that are there, google "Freeport Mine" for starters and also look at http://www.freewestpapua.com.au/news.php
Indonesia is moving Javanese by the thousands to West Papua and other so called Christian areas through their Transmigration policy to dilute the non Indonesian population, similar to the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories.

East Timor's bid for independence can be seen in the same light as above with regards to the fear that communism would sweep down through South East Asia. They finally threw off Indonesian control in 2002, although to be quite honest, in my opinion they (Indonesia) are still heavily meddling in East Timor's internal affairs.

Tibet? well the west isn't going to upset China and allow that to happen, same can be said for Uighur independence in the west of China.

There was a BBC series called "Holidays in the Danger Zone, Places That Don't Exist", the episode on Somaliland was very enlightening.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/places-that-dont-exist.shtml

Hawkmoon

19th February 2008, 01:14

Personally I think that the Republic of Kosovo in inherantly a good idea, since it's ethnically different to Serbia for the most part...

I think that's the dangerous part about the whole independence issue, whether it be Kosovo or any other region.

Should differing ethnicity be enough cause to grant independence? I don't know enough about the history of the place to be sure but I believe that the only reason that there is a differing ethnicity in Kosovo from that of Serbia is that many Albanians have moved there over the years and, as a result, the Serbs have moved out. Jens' example of Russians in Estonia is another example.

If enough French people move into southern England should they be able to declare independence? It's very far-fetched, I know, but is it impossible? I think national boundaries should be very hard to change otherwise, particularly in a place like Europe, you'd have the potential for chaos.

The other question that has to be answered is whether Kosovo (or Scotland, Quebec, Catalunya etc.) can actually support themselves economically. As it stands now, Kosovo is going to need massive handouts from other nations to survive. That's not a great foundation to build a nation on, particularly when you are starting from a low economic level such as where Kosovo are today.

leopard

19th February 2008, 03:46

East Timor's bid for independence can be seen in the same light as above with regards to the fear that communism would sweep down through South East Asia. They finally threw off Indonesian control in 2002, although to be quite honest, in my opinion they (Indonesia) are still heavily meddling in East Timor's internal affairs.

[/URL]
East Timor liberation happened once we have president from civil who couldn't endure international pressure and foreign interferences, especially Australia who would love to see a thorn of an independent region within Indonesian territory to ease them disturbing economic exclusive zone of the ocean of Indonesia.

As an independent country relationship between two countries is now changed to cooperative bilateral relationship to enhance the better quality of life. Although we can't see yet that Timor have anything better than that of they were integrated to Indonesia. Politically they are not ready that the differences among elite of politic have caused murder trial to the president, prime minister and contagious chaos in the said new born country.

Learning from experience, govt must be more careful to the international interference that naming themselves under international human right organization or whatever that may possibly provoke Papuan urge for the independent. Papua is now has special autonomy that enable them wider authority to take care their internal affair themselves.

We would love to keep military president whose capability of unifying the thousand islands, accommodating separatism movement such as the prolonged conflict of Free Aceh Movement peacefully, is excellent.

Camelopard

19th February 2008, 04:32

...I think we have to distinguish those deserve independence or separatism movement. A region with people historically and ethnically different and or treated differently because of difference of ideology I think deserve the independence and have its own right to determine their future.

I'm sure that West Papua fits this category, whereas I don't think Aceh does.

leopard

19th February 2008, 04:55

Nusa Tenggara, Maluku are I think the same ethnic as Papua, the difference we found many half white as the result of intersection once England or Portuguese occupied them.

There is not any difference of ideology, we acknowledge 5 religions all of which have equal treatment.
Integrity is fixed price, no room for separatism.

The ultimate diversity, you will find us multi ethnics country, Javanese, Sundanese, Madurese, Borneo, Celebes, Malay, and hundreds more have its own culture and characteristic. We are one, one for all all for one ;) .

gadjo_dilo

19th February 2008, 07:20

It stands to reason that the Serbian government should be so tetchy about recoginising Kosovian independance. They stand to lose a fair slab of money through lost taxation revenues..
Not at all. It's a fact that kosovars weren't paying any tax and lived on international aids.The ball is in their court now cos they have no budget and their main activity - traffic of drugs and weapons and prostitution - is hardly taxable. :laugh:

Personally I think that the Republic of Kosovo in inherantly a good idea, since it's ethnically different to Serbia for the most part, and when they aren't even on amicable terms, then rule by another state will always be resented.
Yeah, because for you words like Kosovopolje means only Merle's Meadow . :laugh:
But following your reasoning then Macedonia or Bosnia weren't good ideas because there are still more ethnics.

Anyway I'll give you a tip: Serbia still owns Vojvodina, another multi-ethnical region.

Mark

19th February 2008, 07:57

One of the main reasons Serbia is against the indepenence of Kosovo is that it regards the battle at "Kosovo Fields" as a defining moment in the beginning of their nation even though the Serbs were defeated.

Similar to Ireland and the battle of the Boyne. You need to learn from history but then also learn to let it go in order to move forward.

gadjo_dilo

19th February 2008, 08:15

Thank you guys for your understanding. I was expecting an avalanche of posts against me as it seems I'm the only one who shadows the "kosovar happiness".

I see that most of you still think that if a majority ethnic in a certain region wishes its autodetermination then it's fair for them to declare it. Judging the things " at cold " and taking the things out of context it has reason although there is something that it's called " local autonomy " and I think it works in every country..

But as theory is always sublime, it's the practics that kills us. Once again I'll speak only about the Eastern Europe because I want to underline that things are more complicated and should be judged not only with our minds but also with our hearts. You think like westerners forgetting that the history of the east was different. There were 3 empires who fought and divided this region and they all were guided by the principle "divide et impera" ( divide and rule ). It's a combination of political, military and economic strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. In reality, it often refers to a strategy where small power groups are prevented from linking up and becoming more powerful, since it is difficult to break up existing power structures. As a result the process of uniting different different regions lived by the same nation was imposible. At the same time areas "wandered" from one country to another and many times the process was followed by colonization with other ethnics ( like my family ). I suppose we can also see these results in the former USSR countries who were either victims of russification or of deportation. That's why an ancient romanian teritory like Rep.of Moldova has now a strong russophone population.

I'm sorry if I bored you with such things but I think that the history of a region should also be taken into account. Otherwise with the waves of today's migrations in a few hundred years we'll have a surprising map of the world.

The kosovar independence still did a good thing: for the first time I agree with the point of view of our government, and the parliament adopted the decision to don't recognize Kosovo with a bashing majority ( only 27 votes against. guess whose? the party of hungarians who incidentally fights for...autonomy ).

Last but not least, I see that none of you noticed that the unilateral decalration of independence broke the in international rules regarding sovereignity and the inviolability of borders.

ioan

19th February 2008, 09:02

Tell me, did you support the independence of Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Bosnia from Yugoslavia? Yes, the aftermath was bloody, but it had to happen.

In the case of Kosovo, as stated by a British Labour MEP on the radio this morning, the idea of Vladimir Putin becoming any sort of arbiter of international law is most unpalatable.

You should pick up a history book.
Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Bosnia were part of the federal Yugoslavia as was Serbia. Those teritories were always inhabited by croatians, Slovenians, Macedonians, Bosniacs (not sure how it is right to say it in English).
Kosovo has been mainly inhabited by Serbs since the 11th century and until end of the 19th century when Otomans helped by mulsim Albanians cleansed the Serbs from the Kosovo region. However after WWI Serbia retook Kosovo untill now.

USA and some (not all) the European countries went along with this so called new country.
Americans do it because they have their agenda (I suppose that no to long from now we will see a new American military base established in Europe, guess where that will be!).

The European Union were simply thinking with their backsides ever since they tried to solve the problem in the region.

We don't have to forget that the UNO has laws that govern what can and what can't happen in the World.
What has happened in Kosovo is illegal by those laws and for USA and some European countries to support a breach of those laws, that were put in place after WWII in order to make sure that such events do not occur again, is pure idiocy at its finest.

As for France, Great Britain, Belgium and other countries that accept this I would like to see how they will deal the day when Pays Basques, Northern Ireland, Scotland and other regions will decide to do the same! Will they be the first ones to recognize a new country that appears on their territories? I doubt it.

Russia and China will never accept the creation of this new Israel! They have their own well founded reasons for this.
And without them agreeing on it, either there will be no independent Kosovo or there will be no more United Nations Organization on the Earth which means we will come back to pre- WWII situations!

So for once I will support the Russian and Chinese position.

ioan

19th February 2008, 09:06

The problem at the moment with the UN as I understand it is that any permanent member can veto any proposal, even if supported by every other member, which can't be right.

You're wrong there.
The UN Permanent Council involves the militarily strongest countries in the World, any decision they take has to be unanimous unless we need a new World War, because any of them can put an end to this world by pushing a button.

So please don't say foolish things without thinking at a scale that involves more of this world than just your backyard.

ioan

19th February 2008, 09:09

So we now have a new country in Europe - Kosovo.

And BTW you and I or we don't have no new country in Europe. Kosovars might have a new country in Europe.

Camelopard

19th February 2008, 09:11

Mark

19th February 2008, 09:18

You're wrong there.
The UN Permanent Council involves the militarily strongest countries in the World, any decision they take has to be unanimous unless we need a new World War, because any of them can put an end to this world by pushing a button.

So please don't say foolish things without thinking at a scale that involves more of this world than just your backyard.

And we can do without you calling anyone who disagrees with you a fool or liar. I stand by my original post.

gadjo_dilo

19th February 2008, 09:18

Another very well thought out and put together post. Your knowledge continues to astound me :) .

Sorry to disapoint you but I'm just a semidoct who just finished to read the morning papers, :laugh:

ioan

19th February 2008, 09:19

Legally?

LOL

Here it is in a nutshell.....Kosovo declares independence. The rest of the world pays off Serbia not to get pissed off.

Are you serious?
Oh wait, I think you must be American, so better not even start a debate on this.

ioan

19th February 2008, 09:31

And we can do without you calling anyone who disagrees with you a fool or liar. I stand by my original post.

I didn't call you a fool or a liar! In the best case you might say I hinted at your ignorance.

And you may very well disagree. I just pointed it out that you were wrong. Can't take it? Fine, but than do not attack me.

Ranger

19th February 2008, 09:43

Generally independence that's formed out of an aura of trouble and a recent history of conflict/repression is stillborn.
Just look at East Timor and even Israel, who are still in conflict today, regardless of whether it was right or wrong.

And regardless of whether it was right or wrong, Kosovo will be the same for at least the near future.

Camelopard

19th February 2008, 09:46

Sorry to disapoint you but I'm just a semidoct who just finished to read the morning papers, :laugh:

Shouldn't you be working?

Ranger

19th February 2008, 09:50

Can't take it? Fine, but than do not attack me.
Neither post was an attack like you suggest it is.

gadjo_dilo

19th February 2008, 10:01

Shouldn't you be working?
I've just noticed that really interesting topics come whenever I have a hard work ( you might think I don't have too much to do but it's not true ).
Fortunately, I'm greater than Napoleon ( who was supposed to do 2 things at the same time ). So I simultaneusly analyse a law, read the papers, "have activity" on the forum, drink a tea, try to don't listern to my boring colleagues. :laugh:

Drew

19th February 2008, 11:27

In English are people from Kosovo Kosovans or Kosovars?

gadjo_dilo

19th February 2008, 12:21

In English are people from Kosovo Kosovans or Kosovars?

Call them albanians. They wave albanian flag not the one of their "country ". :laugh:

Just read their currency is euro. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

BDunnell

19th February 2008, 12:25

In English are people from Kosovo Kosovans or Kosovars?

I was under the impression that it was Kosovars.

BDunnell

19th February 2008, 12:28

You should pick up a history book.
Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Bosnia were part of the federal Yugoslavia as was Serbia. Those teritories were always inhabited by croatians, Slovenians, Macedonians, Bosniacs (not sure how it is right to say it in English).

ioan, I am perfectly well aware of those aspects of the history of those countries, thank you very much.

Is it possible to rebut the posts made by others without telling them to 'pick up a history book' or saying that they are being 'foolish'?

BDunnell

19th February 2008, 12:30

Thank you guys for your understanding. I was expecting an avalanche of posts against me as it seems I'm the only one who shadows the "kosovar happiness".

Not at all. I think it's right to be cautious about the prospects. And you present your arguments very well.

ioan

19th February 2008, 12:49

ioan, I am perfectly well aware of those aspects of the history of those countries, thank you very much.

Is it possible to rebut the posts made by others without telling them to 'pick up a history book' or saying that they are being 'foolish'?

OK, I was far to cynical. My bad.

I hope however that you got the point about the differences between Croatia, Slovenia etc and Kosovo.

BDunnell

19th February 2008, 14:12

OK, I was far to cynical. My bad.

I hope however that you got the point about the differences between Croatia, Slovenia etc and Kosovo.

Yes. No hard feelings!

fandango

19th February 2008, 18:09

If enough French people move into southern England should they be able to declare independence? It's very far-fetched, I know, but is it impossible? I think national boundaries should be very hard to change otherwise, particularly in a place like Europe, you'd have the potential for chaos..... (snipped)....

The other question that has to be answered is whether Kosovo (or Scotland, Quebec, Catalunya etc.) can actually support themselves economically.

From the point of view of Catalan nationalists, it's very significant that the Spanish government won't recognise this as a new country. The main opposition don't recognise it either.

Catalans have been asking for years for the financial details of how much they pay into, and get out of, the Spanish economy. Both government and opposition parties, bitter enemies, refuse to publish these details. It's one of the few things they agree on. So one can only conclude that there's a good reason why ie that Catalans wouldn't like it (the basque country collects its own taxes, and then pays what they think is correct to Madrid each year).

So, many in Catalunya are hoping things go well for Kosovo.

There hasn't been a referendum on independence in any of the Spanish "regions" because it was written into the constitution that a referendum could not take place (a constitution which was rejected in the Basque Country). It is also written into the Spanish constitution that it's the army's duty to maintain the unity of Spain against ALL threats. It's a bit of a mess.

anthonyvop

19th February 2008, 18:12

Are you serious?
Oh wait, I think you must be American, so better not even start a debate on this.
So you have finally realized I am right!
Now your life will be much more fulfilling!

Rollo

19th February 2008, 21:17

If enough French people move into southern England should they be able to declare independence? It's very far-fetched, I know, but is it impossible? I think national boundaries should be very hard to change otherwise, particularly in a place like Europe, you'd have the potential for chaos.

Not only is it possible but with the long viewpoint of history it's accepted FACT. Who would you like to start with?

Saxons, Danes? How about when a fellow by the name of Billy set sail with his army of nine thousand Normans, after one of the most confusing roll-calls ever taken and after taking someone's eye out declared himself king? English history is replete with invasion after invasion. As of now there's a Scottish Queen, a Scottish Prime Minister and a Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer in charge of England.

How about in the country you live? Sufficient number of English people just turned up and settled there and as far as I'm aware, the Australian flag still has a Union Flag in the canton and HM Lizzie is on the back of coins.

Maybe a history lesson is in order. You may like to check out the League of Prizren which was formed in 1878 or 1879? I can't remember.
At any rate, Kosovo was roughly 75% Albanian in origin and about 25% Slavic by the time of the Baltic Wars of 1912 anyway; certainly the Kingdom of Serbia took the place by force, so it could very easily be argued that the formation of the modern republic is just a return to the proper owners anyway.

you'd have the potential for chaos.
1914-1918, 1939-1945 mean anything to you?

jso1985

19th February 2008, 22:32

I believe any region of the world should be allowed to seek independece through a referendum, in the end why force people to be part of a country they don't want to?

But on this specific case, I don't think it's the right thing for Kosovo, having quite a lot Albanians doesn't seem like a good reason enough, they had autonomy before right? I think in those cases autonomous regions should work

ioan

20th February 2008, 00:09

Rollo

20th February 2008, 01:06

Let's take the history lesson further and see how many Albanians were living in Kosovo around before 1878?

Ok. Let's apply it to your country then. If your flag is correct and you do come from Romania, then your country can't have existed for any more than a couple of months at best, longer than Kosovo did. Romania was created under the same set of circumstances at the Congress of Berlin in June of 1878, which also created Serbia and Montenegro on July 13 of that year.
How many Romanians were there before 1878? None. They were all citizens of the Ottoman Empire.

I refer you to the famous Pot vs Kettle racial discrimination case.

gadjo_dilo

20th February 2008, 07:32

Rudy Tamasz

20th February 2008, 07:51

From the standpoint of international law you can argue either way for or agaist the right of peoples to self-determination, because the law and its interpretations are very confusing. After WWII the right to self-determination tended to be applied exclusively to colonial peoples. There were exceptions like Bangladesh and Eritrea, though. In any case, Kosovo is another precedent in favor of a broader interpretation.

In terms of realpolitik I find Kosovo independence very dangerous, though. I think everybody is equally guilty of the mess that happened in former Yugoslavia but only Serbs were made to pay for that. Kosovo is allowed to secede from Serbia, but Serbs are not allowed to secede from Bosnia and Croatia. At the same time Serbia is by far the most belligerent nation in the Balkans and further humiliation of Serbs is the shortest way to future unrest. Unless Serbia is generously compensated Europe is in for another big unrest.

gadjo_dilo

20th February 2008, 08:20

Maybe a history lesson is in order. You may like to check out the League of Prizren which was formed in 1878 or 1879? I can't remember.
At any rate, Kosovo was roughly 75% Albanian in origin and about 25% Slavic by the time of the Baltic Wars of 1912 anyway; certainly the Kingdom of Serbia took the place by force, so it could very easily be argued that the formation of the modern republic is just a return to the proper owners anyway.

I raise my hands up and admit that if there ever were Baltic Wars in 1912 I missed that lesson ( disliked the modern and contemporary history lessons ).
And can't see any relation between Kosovo and Baltic Sea.
I suppose you're talking about Balkanic Wars which is another fish dish.
According to the serbian represantative in our parliament serbs were in majority even before 2nd WW when Mussolini determined serbs to leave and find refuge in Serbia. Then after the war Tito gave a decree that interdicted them to get back and albanians became the majority. Don't know if it's true cos he could be biased. But it's not fair to take things out of context and say in the year X there were...
For ex.: in Bulgaria there is an area we use to call Cadrilater. Before the balcanic wars no romanian lived there. Then after balcanic wars Romania won it and colonized it. In 1940 Bulgaria won it back and all romanians were sent back in 48 hours. It's more than fair for a romanian to say that this land is bulgarian even if in the year 1940 we were probably the majority.

ioan

20th February 2008, 08:27

Ok. Let's apply it to your country then. If your flag is correct and you do come from Romania, then your country can't have existed for any more than a couple of months at best, longer than Kosovo did. Romania was created under the same set of circumstances at the Congress of Berlin in June of 1878, which also created Serbia and Montenegro on July 13 of that year.
How many Romanians were there before 1878? None. They were all citizens of the Ottoman Empire.

:rotflmao:
We got to the point where an Englishman believes he knows better Romanian history than a Romanian.
You seem to only know about facts from 1878 up to now. Well, I have some new for you, the world existed before 1878 too.
I'll even go as far as telling you that we, Romanians, existed hundreds of years before the Ottoman Empire was created!
As for the first time when Romania was created as independent state that united all 3 provinces that were inhabited by Romanian speaking population I'll refer you to year 1600 and Mihai Viteazul (Michael the Brave).
Here, have good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_the_Brave

You will notice that he was let down by his so called allies (the same ones that let down Romania in WWII in front of the Russians) who went as far as killing him.

We as a people might have been divided and ruled by different Empires over the history from the 3rd century up to 1918 when we managed to brake free, but we were still talking the same language after more than a thousand years of occupation.

I hope this helped to give you some knowledge of pre 1878 history of Europe!

I refer you to the famous Pot vs Kettle racial discrimination case.

I don't see the utility of this comment in this discussion.

Mark

20th February 2008, 08:41

We as a people might have been divided and ruled by different Empires over the history from the 3rd century up to 1918 when we managed to brake free,

Would you classify 1947-1989 as 'free'?

but we were still talking the same language after more than a thousand years of occupation.

It's an evolution of the same language, but I doubt any spoken language today is the same as it was 1000 years ago.

gadjo_dilo

20th February 2008, 08:42

From the standpoint of international law you can argue either way for or agaist the right of peoples to self-determination, because the law and its interpretations are very confusing. After WWII the right to self-determination tended to be applied exclusively to colonial peoples. There were exceptions like Bangladesh and Eritrea, though. In any case, Kosovo is another precedent in favor of a broader interpretation.

Our president, government and parliament affirm that international law is very clear in forbidding to confer " collective rights " to minorities. So in Kosovo's case the "interpretation" is illegal.

Otherwise we might have a " Matrioshka " effect: a majority ethnic proclaim its independence in a teritory, then in one of its regions an ethnic who's in majority will claim the same thing, etc. and we'll may assist to an " atomization" of earth.

gadjo_dilo

20th February 2008, 09:25

Would you classify 1947-1989 as 'free'?.

Yeah. Despite the comunist regime, it was a sovereign state, member of the UN. Even your lovely queen welcomed Ceausescu with great honours and showed him London from her carriage. :laugh:

It's an evolution of the same language, but I doubt any spoken language today is the same as it was 1000 years ago.

Of course not. In the meantime we invented the most colourful insults and swearings in the world. However the basic lexic is the same and even preserved words from the Dacian period.
I've just remember that on my computer I have access to ALL romanian legislation. The opening page is "The treaty from 1393 between Mircea I, Suveran of Valahia and Sultan Baiazet Ilderim " ( where our mutual friend Rollo can see that romanians existed before 1878 and even enjoyed a large autonomy :laugh :) and despite a few archaic forms of the verbs and an exaggerated politness that might sound odd for the crazy stressed man of the 20mth century it's in the most genuine romanian posible.

ioan

20th February 2008, 10:21

Would you classify 1947-1989 as 'free'?

Yes it was free from occupation by any other country.
Had a president and a Parliament.

And BTW I said from 1918 not 1947. Between 1919 and 1939 Romania had one of the best (maybe even the best) economical situations in central and eastern Europe!

It's an evolution of the same language, but I doubt any spoken language today is the same as it was 1000 years ago.

Of course it did evolve, but as already pointed out by gadjo_dilo it isn't so different and we can easily read and understand it, not to mention lots of words that kept their form for more than 2000 years.

I know for a fact that 99% of the western people only know about Romania that it is an ex-communist country and that Dracula was a Transylvanian prince.
I wouldn't dare to comment about a country with so little knowledge of it's history, history that starts thousands of years ago.

And I suppose that all the ex-communist countries are in the same situation

ioan

20th February 2008, 10:23

Our president, government and parliament affirm that international law is very clear in forbidding to confer " collective rights " to minorities. So in Kosovo's case the "interpretation" is illegal.

Otherwise we might have a " Matrioshka " effect: a majority ethnic proclaim its independence in a teritory, then in one of its regions an ethnic who's in majority will claim the same thing, etc. and we'll may assist to an " atomization" of earth.

And here's a pretty good illustration of the "Matrioshka" effect:
http://media.hotnews.ro/media_server1//IMAGE/JPG/2008/02/20/2400960/Matrosca_41.jpg

;)

Mark

20th February 2008, 10:42

Of course it did evolve, but as already pointed out by gadjo_dilo it isn't so different and we can easily read and understand it, not to mention lots of words that kept their form for more than 2000 years.

Of course 2,000 years ago it wasn't Romanian at all but Latin.

Mark

20th February 2008, 10:51

ioan

20th February 2008, 10:57

Of course 2,000 years ago it wasn't Romanian at all but Latin.

Well in fact it was not Latin, but Dacic (not sure how it is right in English).
Romans first conquered Dacia in 101 AD.
A bit of info about the ancient Dacia (now Romania):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacia

It's a good read, many valuable infos about our ancient history.

Romanian language contains words of Latin, Dacic and Slavic origin (and nowadays many others were added mostly technical terms like internet ;) !)

Mark

20th February 2008, 11:03

ioan

20th February 2008, 11:16

BTW for those interested in the history of countries in Europe this site is excellent http://www.euratlas.com/summary.htm It shows a map for every 100 years from the year 0. It's fascinating to see how different it was even in 1900.

Thanks for the link.
Very interesting indeed.
A pity that they seem not to be very sure about what was happening outside of the Roman Empire after their retreat to the south of Danube in 273 AD.

Their map is either white with lots of migratory tribe names all over it or is blurred with indefinite contours of known principalities extending over some parts with unsure limits. Also there are very old cities, dating to centuries BC on the Black Sea side that should be on the map but aren't there.

I can hardly believe that there wasn't a stable population in the region when there is proof that it wasn't this way.

However we are not to talk about Romanian history but rather about the independence of Kosovo. Let's look it up on that map! ;)

ioan

20th February 2008, 11:21

Interesting. Romanian is generally regarded as a 'Romance' language in the same way as French, Italian etc, of course these languages diverge by taking on aspects of other languages and dialects spoken in the local area.

English of couse has a strong latin fluence too but not as strong as in Romance countries.

There are various degrees of Latin influences on almost all the languages spoken in Europe.
My GF said that it was easy for her to learn Russian because she learned Latin previously, and well she is a native German speaker.

gadjo_dilo

20th February 2008, 11:24

Of course 2,000 years ago it wasn't Romanian at all but Latin.

Give me a break. He said " lots of words " and he's right. Some of the words are of dacian origin and it means we used them long before the roman conquest. Then it's a fact that romanian language evolved from balkanic latin and of course there are lots of latin words.

Interesting. Romanian is generally regarded as a 'Romance' language in the same way as French, Italian etc, of course these languages diverge by taking on aspects of other languages and dialects spoken in the local area..
They say it's the closest to latin from all these languages. But why do you find that interesting? I think you should know by now that we are stubborn people and diferent incursions couldn't change us . :laugh:

Aren't we supposed to talk about Kosovo?

Mark

20th February 2008, 11:27

The thread is for discussion of independence of any country, not just Kosovo :)

gadjo_dilo

20th February 2008, 11:42

Great. Then who's next?

Mark

20th February 2008, 12:00

Scotland possibly!

Rollo

20th February 2008, 12:08

I raise my hands up and admit that if there ever were Baltic Wars in 1912 I missed that lesson ( disliked the modern and contemporary history lessons ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Balkan_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Balkan_War

I'll even go as far as telling you that we, Romanians, existed hundreds of years before the Ottoman Empire was created!
As for the first time when Romania was created as independent state that united all 3 provinces that were inhabited by Romanian speaking population I'll refer you to year 1600 and Mihai Viteazul (Michael the Brave).

What? Transyvania, Wallchia and Moldavia? I know about this. Romania as a "nation-state" for want of a better word didn't exist until 1859 when Cuza was made Domnitor.
How far back would you like to go? Dacia? The Getae? The Vlachs?

The point with all of this, is that the Albanian peoples of Kosovo have existed there for longer than half of the nations of Europe anyway. For then to get independence should they demand it, is probably reasonable.

gadjo_dilo

20th February 2008, 12:10

I'd prefer Northern Ireland. Just imagine when UK of GB and NI will miss a piece in its title. The last colonies will claim also independence.

Rollo

20th February 2008, 12:33

All hail King Danny I of the Kingdom of Lovely!

ioan

20th February 2008, 12:34

What? Transyvania, Wallchia and Moldavia? I know about this. Romania as a "nation-state" for want of a better word didn't exist until 1859 when Cuza was made Domnitor.
How far back would you like to go? Dacia? The Getae? The Vlachs?

It was one single state back whenit was called Dacia, and it was one single state in 1600, although only for a short period of time.

And yes I will go back as much as needed if there is proof for what I say, it's called history. Obviously you aren't as keen on doing it as it doesn't support your POV.

ioan

20th February 2008, 12:41

But what is the sue of being independent while we are all part of the EU?
Autonomy is all you need if you want to govern yourself and pay less taxes.
All these independences are bound to fragment the world and eventually get us back to inter-tribal petty wars.
I'm not sure I see why this should happen.

Call me cynical but I believe that the only thing that will change is that there will be many more governments composed of power hungry people.
These governments will be more difficult to get to agree on something ( a bit like F1 team nowadays) because each will want to get his fairer share of the cake.
I see all this like a huge step back to pre WWII standards.

Drew

20th February 2008, 12:43

Robinho

20th February 2008, 12:47

Great. Then who's next?
Yorkshire?

gadjo_dilo

20th February 2008, 13:22

What? Transyvania, Wallchia and Moldavia? I know about this. Romania as a "nation-state" for want of a better word didn't exist until 1859 when Cuza was made Domnitor.
How far back would you like to go? Dacia? The Getae? The Vlachs? .
You obviously know nothing. No matter how far you want to go the daco-roman element is present here. In our nation and in our language. In your opinion who inhabited those 3 principates and what language did they speak?
.

The point with all of this, is that the Albanian peoples of Kosovo have existed there for longer than half of the nations of Europe anyway. For then to get independence should they demand it, is probably reasonable.

Well, well...A little bit more and we'll find out that albanians of Kosovo are the navel of the earth. :laugh: Anyway any paralel between romanians and albanians is useless. Like Serbia and Albania, Kosovo was part of a pashalyk. T, W and M weren't included in the ottoman empire but had to pay tribute to the sultan. We stayed christian unlike albanians who were converted to islamism, turks had interdictions to build mosques on our teritory, we had romanian kings, the oficial language was romanian, we had our own laws, we were free to declare war to the neighbours, etc.

Rollo

20th February 2008, 13:30

gadjo_dilo

20th February 2008, 14:06

What is your definition of a nation pray tell, and why doesn't it apply to Kosovo?
I shouldn't answer you until you tell me if you're related to Mr. Roller. :laugh: But since I have a sympathy for you I'll have a try. Please excuse my poor english, I don't know if the final result will make sense.
Nation = Permanent community of people, with a common history, based on a community of language, teritory, economic life and psychic factor, which manifests itself in specific peculiarities of national culture and in the conscience of a common origin and destiny.

The answer derives from the definition. The so called kosovars are more albanians than a new nation and the new state Kosovo is more of Albania 2. I'm not sure but I tend to think they don't have continuity on that land, they don't speak a diferent language, they even wave the albanian flag, their economic life is more related to the albanese way of life ( infractors ), their origin is not different.

Magnus

20th February 2008, 14:14

Mixing the concepts of nations and stateformations are a quite common mistake. To ignore them is an even bigger. Just look at all problems caused by the 1878 congress in Berlin where the colonial west-countries in a final act of brute Laizzes faires politics, which had dominated Europe througout the 19 century, splitted the continent of Africa between themselves without thinking twice regarding the ethnical, religious and other bonds that constitutes nations.

Rudy Tamasz

20th February 2008, 14:19

You obviously know nothing. No matter how far you want to go the daco-roman element is present here. In our nation and in our language. In your opinion who inhabited those 3 principates and what language did they speak?

First, archaeologists say that Geto-dacians were not romanized. They stayed under Roman sovereignty for a while and then dissolved in the waves of incoming Germanic, Slavic and Turkic tribes. The ancestors of modern day Romanians were the descendants of romanized Balkan tribes and migrated to their new homeland from Moesia and other territories south of Danube in 8-9 centuries A.D. assimilating local Slavs on their way.

Second, I am not sure about Valachia and Moldova, but Transylvania had a very mixed Szekely/German/Romanian population. Hungarian was the official language, Old Slavonic and Greek were used in Orthodox churches, German and Romanian were spoken and maybe used in self-government. I do not dispute current sovereignty of Romania over Transylvania, but for 16-17 centuries its unification with Valachia and Moldova was a rare exception, not a rule.

gadjo_dilo

20th February 2008, 14:25

Rudy, I'll answer this tomorrow cos in 10 min I'll go home.

SOD

20th February 2008, 14:28

There's Albanians and then there Kosovar Albanians :rolleyes: Lets invade a country and then create an independent state from a piece within it.

BTW, the Serbs were the only group to kick out the Nazis without external help.

ioan

20th February 2008, 16:34

First, archaeologists say that Geto-dacians were not romanized. They stayed under Roman sovereignty for a while and then dissolved in the waves of incoming Germanic, Slavic and Turkic tribes. The ancestors of modern day Romanians were the descendants of romanized Balkan tribes and migrated to their new homeland from Moesia and other territories south of Danube in 8-9 centuries A.D. assimilating local Slavs on their way.

It depends pretty much on which archeologist says that.
I've never heard a Romanian archeologist advance that theory up to now. I also do have my doubts that archologists of other nationality ever came to search for Geto-Dacic traces in Romania, because during the communist regime that wouldn't have been allowed and almsot everything was excavated in that period.

Also I base my theory about Romanians being descendants of the Geto-Dacic population because of the words of Dacic origin that are present in the Romanian language.
I think that if the modern Romanians are the descendants of romanized Balkan tribes that migrated from Moesia and other territories south of Danube than there shouldn't be words of geto-dacic origin in our language.
Studies based on language do show a coherent way of developement of the Romanian language based on the Latin and Geto-Dacic languages.

Second, I am not sure about Valachia and Moldova, but Transylvania had a very mixed Szekely/German/Romanian population. Hungarian was the official language, Old Slavonic and Greek were used in Orthodox churches, German and Romanian were spoken and maybe used in self-government. I do not dispute current sovereignty of Romania over Transylvania, but for 16-17 centuries its unification with Valachia and Moldova was a rare exception, not a rule.

I was born and lived 21 years in Transylvania, more precisely in the district of Harghita where more than 80% of the population is of Hungarian origins (more precisely Szekely).
I studied for several years in Brasov (Kronstadt in German) where a somewhat larger German speaking community (Sachsen as they are called in German).
Sachsen were never the majority in any of the Romanian districts, ever.
For many centuries Transylvania was under Hungarian and Austro-Hungarian domination.
All this time the population was in majority (and there you can count on at least 80%) composed of Romanian peasants.
They tried many times to free themselves but every time the authorities ended it in blood baths.
80+% of Romanians can not mean anything else than the obvious thing that Transylvania was not Hungarian, neither Austrian or Turkish.

What is interesting is that the very first Romanian cultural stream was started in Transylvania in the 19th century, it is called "Scoala Romaneasca". They were the ones that triggered the awakening of the Romanian nation that was ruled for centuries by Hungarians, Austrians and Turks.

To sum it up, I've seen many different history books (published outside of Romania) about what happened on the Romanian territory but most of them are based on theories with little support to it, simply because they never investigated it.

I'm sure that gadjo_dilo will add a lot more to this tomorrow when he get's back to work! :p :

Rollo

20th February 2008, 19:27

The answer derives from the definition. The so called kosovars are more albanians than a new nation and the new state Kosovo is more of Albania 2. I'm not sure but I tend to think they don't have continuity on that land, they don't speak a diferent language, they even wave the albanian flag, their economic life is more related to the albanese way of life ( infractors ), their origin is not different.

Hang on,
They aren't trying to derive independence from Albania but from Serbia. If what you've said is true, then they shouldn't have been part of Serbia in the first place but part of Albania and certainly not part of Serbia now.
Kosovo is trying to split from rule under Belgrade, not Tirana.

Did you forget this? Or does it make sense that they still be part of Serbia? (or ever should have been)

Camelopard

20th February 2008, 22:13

How about in the country you live? Sufficient number of English people just turned up and settled there and as far as I'm aware, the Australian flag still has a Union Flag in the canton and HM Lizzie is on the back of coins.

Not for much longer imo. Once old lizzie carks it, no-one here, exceopt maybe for a few expatriate poms will want charlie as the monach. I'll have a guess and say if the current government is returned in the next election a republic will once again be on the cards.

Camelopard

20th February 2008, 22:17

...Slavic by the time of the Baltic Wars of 1912 anyway;

I'm not sure what the Baltic has to do with this. It''s probably just as well that you don't answer any questions in the Geography thread :p .

Last time I looked at an atlas the Baltic was a small area of water between Sweden and Finland :p .

Rollo

20th February 2008, 22:20

Provided the model is correct (which is most likely the reason why the 1999 referendum failed) then when the referendum is called Australia would probably vote for it. Australia was created with a vote in the first place, and they're reasonable enough to change a government system also with a vote.

This is fair and reasonable.

BDunnell

20th February 2008, 22:44

But what is the sue of being independent while we are all part of the EU?
Autonomy is all you need if you want to govern yourself and pay less taxes.

I do not feel that the EU has eroded national identity to too great an extent. Its member countries are all still individual sovereign states.

BDunnell

20th February 2008, 22:46

Chaos that we don't want to see repeated, that's why everyone should stick th the UN laws that managed to keep us out of trouble for over 60 years, instead of getting euphoric about a bunch of ex-terrorists proclaiming the independence of a region.

I agree very much with the first part of that. But let's not forget that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. After all, Nelson Mandela was dubbed a terrorist by some (many, you could say.)

Camelopard

21st February 2008, 01:24

gadjo_dilo

21st February 2008, 10:38

First, archaeologists say that Geto-dacians were not romanized. They stayed under Roman sovereignty for a while and then dissolved in the waves of incoming Germanic, Slavic and Turkic tribes. The ancestors of modern day Romanians were the descendants of romanized Balkan tribes and migrated to their new homeland from Moesia and other territories south of Danube in 8-9 centuries A.D. assimilating local Slavs on their way..
First, it's not fair to say " archaeologists say " but "SOME historics say ".
I know this theory, it's associated with the name of Robert Roesler and it's very dear to the magyar iredentist circles. The idea is to demonstrate that romanians imigrated after hungarians conquered Transylvania, and to justify once again the politics of forced magyarization in Transylvania after the instauration of the Austro-Hungarian dualism and the lack of rights for romanian nation.
The theory is infirmed by many historics and I need a few forum pages to demolish it, it's too boring for you, the forumers.
But it happen to be an aromanian myself, so I know and speak this dialect and I can say with the hand on my heart that it's different of the daco-romanian spoken at the north of Danube. The argument " a silentio " may be also applied to albanians. In that period we don't have a written document about them for 1000 years but none of their neighbours will say they landed there from the sky. :laugh:
Etc.etc.etc.

Second, I am not sure about Valachia and Moldova, but Transylvania had a very mixed Szekely/German/Romanian population. Hungarian was the official language, Old Slavonic and Greek were used in Orthodox churches, German and Romanian were spoken and maybe used in self-government. I do not dispute current sovereignty of Romania over Transylvania, but for 16-17 centuries its unification with Valachia and Moldova was a rare exception, not a rule.

In brief: in the feudal period, until the turkish domination, the romanian voievods were vassals either to hungarian or polish kings. In the XII th century hungarian kings brought in Transylavania szekely ( their origin is unknown but they were magyaraized. these days they are asimilated to the magyar minority ) and szasz as colonists. The first on military purpose, to defend the borders, the second were of german origin and came to build cities and spread handicrafts ( and they really did an excellent job. they were always a quiet minority and these days they live in small number cos most of them took advantage of their origin and went back to Germany ). These 2 communities enjoyed privilleges unlike romanians who were othodox and refused to be converted to catholicism. Some romanian nobles left for Moldova or Wallachia, only a few converted, many of them lost privillegies and got paupered. In these conditions the Dieta ( who ruled the region ) was formed mainly by magyars. After a big riot in 1437, the "winners", the magyar nobility, the szekely and the szasz from the cities had an agreement and formed "Unio trium nationum ". Romanians who were anyway the majority were excluded and treated as " tolerated nation ".
It's interesting what happened during the ottoman autocracy. Unlike the states in region ( Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Serbia, Hungary ) who became pashalycs ( meaning a turkish administration ) all three romanian principates enjoyed a semi-independence having their own governor and lots of rights on condition to pay a tribute in gold and horses.
The story is longer but now I have to go to a "new pensioner "party.

I didn't mentioned the union under Michael the Brave. In my opinion it was more of his personal will than the will of people.

Rudy Tamasz

21st February 2008, 12:34

Dear gadjo_dilo and ioan, it is clear that you know Roman history much better than I do. I posted some history stuff here just to show how many different views on history there can be, even staying within the borders of scientific accuracy and excluding outlandish theories. If you select facts skillfully enough for crafting nationalistic myths, you can justify virtually anything with history. Anybody can say with a good deal of scientific backing that "we lived here forever and spoke the same language for the last 2,000 years and we were much bigger and lost some of our territories because of the worldwide conspiracy against us but we'll reclaim those at the first chance".

I indulged in this little exercise on debating skills because our discussion on independence has veered off into history and ethnology, which are of secondary importance to the issue. What matters is not a battle won or lost 500 years ago and the percentage of a certain ethnic group in a country's population. What matters is how strong is a political case for independence made by an aspiring people. How viable is the territory economically? How well are they able to govern themselves? Will they respect human rights in their new state including the rights of minorities and dissenters? Will they be a pain in the a$$ for the security of the region etc.?

When we regard these aspects I think Kosovo's independence is half-baked at best. It is a real shame that the international community opted to accept it so hastily instead of brokering a truly long-term solution to the problem. True, after what happened it is next to impossible to force Serbs and Kosovars live in one state, but there still was some room for negotiating. Now Europe will have to deal with consequences. The first thing EU will do now is roll out a billion euro in subsidies to Kosovo, which shows the degree of sustainability of the new country. Let's see what happens next.

BDunnell

21st February 2008, 13:08

I indulged in this little exercise on debating skills because our discussion on independence has veered off into history and ethnology, which are of secondary importance to the issue. What matters is not a battle won or lost 500 years ago and the percentage of a certain ethnic group in a country's population. What matters is how strong is a political case for independence made by an aspiring people. How viable is the territory economically? How well are they able to govern themselves? Will they respect human rights in their new state including the rights of minorities and dissenters? Will they be a pain in the a$$ for the security of the region etc.?

When we regard these aspects I think Kosovo's independence is half-baked at best. It is a real shame that the international community opted to accept it so hastily instead of brokering a truly long-term solution to the problem. True, after what happened it is next to impossible to force Serbs and Kosovars live in one state, but there still was some room for negotiating. Now Europe will have to deal with consequences. The first thing EU will do now is roll out a billion euro in subsidies to Kosovo, which shows the degree of sustainability of the new country. Let's see what happens next.

All very interesting, stimulating points.

One question is what a truly long-term solution to the Kosovo problem would be. I am unsure as to whether there was any truly sustainable option other than independence. I would also say that the international community, including the EU, would do best to try and ensure that its new member, the independent Kosovo, treats the Serb minority on its soil in an appropriate, non-discriminatory manner. If it does so, the potential for future conflict is surely lessened. The economic aspects may be more problematic, and I agree that Kosovo can't keep on having money thrown at it.

gadjo_dilo

21st February 2008, 13:42

What matters is how strong is a political case for independence made by an aspiring people. How viable is the territory economically? How well are they able to govern themselves? Will they respect human rights in their new state including the rights of minorities and dissenters? Will they be a pain in the a$$ for the security of the region etc.?

But you know how it is in politics. There's no place for philosophical questions. It's not about people's aspirations but always the interest of powerful states. Unimportant states may have desires for hundred years,if their dreams don't met with a poweful state interest they can dream in vain.
I admit I didn't read a history book since I was in school. Last night I browsed one as I didn't want to make a fool of myself on the forum and I'm still shocked realising that every important moment in our history ( good or bad ) was posible only because X or Y had its own interest in that matter, some things we really wanted never happened cos there wasn't in the interest of X and sometimes parts of the country were "sold" to another country because X wanted to hit/ thank Y.

Rudy Tamasz

21st February 2008, 14:36

But you know how it is in politics. There's no place for philosophical questions. It's not about people's aspirations but always the interest of powerful states. Unimportant states may have desires for hundred years,if their dreams don't met with a poweful state interest they can dream in vain.
I admit I didn't read a history book since I was in school. Last night I browsed one as I didn't want to make a fool of myself on the forum and I'm still shocked realising that every important moment in our history ( good or bad ) was posible only because X or Y had its own interest in that matter, some things we really wanted never happened cos there wasn't in the interest of X and sometimes parts of the country were "sold" to another country because X wanted to hit/ thank Y.

I disagree. Things happen not because superpower X or influential person Y wanted it so, but because a combination of objective reasons dictated it. You may gain a bit more if you are lucky and you may lose a bit more if you are not, but most likely you won't be able to turn tides arbitrarily. Of course, some changes in Romanian borders were caused by diplomatic games of great powers but the overall extent of Romanian sovereignty boils down as much to domestic factors as to external ones.

We can also argue, that Kosovo independence is the product of U.S. foreign policy seeking to establish another satellite in the Balkans, but we should admit that Kosovars played their cards bloody well ever after WWII despite having been on the wrong side.

ioan

21st February 2008, 14:50

We can also argue, that Kosovo independence is the product of U.S. foreign policy seeking to establish another satellite in the Balkans, but we should admit that Kosovars played their cards bloody well ever after WWII despite having been on the wrong side.

I agree with both, but I would say that the first reason contributed around 99,99% to Kosovo being allowed to declare their independence.

Daniel

21st February 2008, 15:00

I agree very much with the first part of that. But let's not forget that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. After all, Nelson Mandela was dubbed a terrorist by some (many, you could say.)

Not without reason though...... but of course because of skin colour you can't say anything bad about Nelson :) That'd be racist you know :) I forgot to mention that Nelson wasn't actually a terrorist but a saboteur. Funny innit?

You know I don't mind freedom fighters but when they get involved in terrorist activities it should be out there for all to see. Not stuffed down the side of the couch that is history.

Erki

21st February 2008, 15:43

Last time I looked at an atlas the Baltic was a small area of water between Sweden and Finland :p .

Last time I checked, I happened to live in a Baltic country. :eek: I give you three shots to guess which. :)

Camelopard

21st February 2008, 15:58

Last time I checked, I happened to live in a Baltic country. :eek: I give you three shots to guess which. :)

I've got some Baltic pine timber in my house :) .

donKey jote

21st February 2008, 18:53

I haven't had a decent Balti for donkeys :(
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

BDunnell

21st February 2008, 18:57

I haven't had a decent Balti for donkeys :(
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

:laugh:

Well, in the UK, this would be down to the current shortage of curry chefs caused by increasing immigration from eastern Europe and decreasing immigration from Asia!

Daniel

21st February 2008, 18:59

:laugh:

Well, in the UK, this would be down to the current shortage of curry chefs caused by increasing immigration from eastern Europe and decreasing immigration from Asia!
Not a problem here. We have two very good curry houses within about 5 minutes drive :facelick: I'll have a chicken korma please!

airshifter

21st February 2008, 21:33

But you know how it is in politics. There's no place for philosophical questions. It's not about people's aspirations but always the interest of powerful states. Unimportant states may have desires for hundred years,if their dreams don't met with a poweful state interest they can dream in vain.
I admit I didn't read a history book since I was in school. Last night I browsed one as I didn't want to make a fool of myself on the forum and I'm still shocked realising that every important moment in our history ( good or bad ) was posible only because X or Y had its own interest in that matter, some things we really wanted never happened cos there wasn't in the interest of X and sometimes parts of the country were "sold" to another country because X wanted to hit/ thank Y.

Though I agree with much of this, I also have to agree with much of what Rudy states directly following this.

Many times in history powerful nations have influenced such things, but there are also many times this influence has failed to change the course of events which as Rudy stated are driven by objective reasons.

In the end it may be a matter of how all of us define what is or is not a good for all involved, but such opinions would be more subjective to influence.

I would also like to say for with a few minor exceptions, this has been one of the best discussions in the general area for quite some time. If more topics could be discussed like this even when they sometimes contain heated opinions, we might all get more out of them.

ioan

22nd February 2008, 00:39

It seems that the atmosphere is getting a little bit hot in Belgrade, certainly at the US embassy.

Mark

22nd February 2008, 08:03

Could you imagine people rioting in London if Scotland declared independance? :s

gadjo_dilo

22nd February 2008, 08:14

I disagree. Things happen not because superpower X or influential person Y wanted it so, but because a combination of objective reasons dictated it. You may gain a bit more if you are lucky and you may lose a bit more if you are not, but most likely you won't be able to turn tides arbitrarily. Of course, some changes in Romanian borders were caused by diplomatic games of great powers but the overall extent of Romanian sovereignty boils down as much to domestic factors as to external ones.

We can also argue, that Kosovo independence is the product of U.S. foreign policy seeking to establish another satellite in the Balkans, but we should admit that Kosovars played their cards bloody well ever after WWII despite having been on the wrong side.

I don't need to argue, I'm too stubborn in my belief and I don't mind if somebody think different, we don't have same life experiences. Don't know the peculiar case of your country but in ours at the end of the WW II communists were so many they could have their congress in an elevator. So no matter how hard I try I can't see the "objective reasons " that dictated the horrible 50 years of communism. I can see only 3 guys meeting in Yalta and playing a bit with Europe's map. Then I was forced to take part at meetings of thousands of people in the honour of the dictator. I thought " what if a guy will shout something against him or take a gun and shoot him ? ". But the scowled faces of the guys infiltrated among us calmed me down. However the thing became reality, but before we had to have the Malta agreement. And the dream of my life became true through a production made in Hollywood with the script written in Moscow.

No matter what cards played Kosovo after WWII, if USA didn't want it ,the independence would never haver happened. And they didn't want it because kosovars are right ( no offence, but how many americans know about Kosovo ? ) but because they wanted another spur in Serbia's coast ( that is to say Russia ).
In the 80's they tried a similar thing in Afghanistan by helping the mudjahedins. After 10 years they harvested the fruits in the person of Bin Laden. Let's hope this time they'll be more lucky.

I was pleased to see Emir Kusturica at last night's meeting. Although to my knowledge he'a a muslim bosniac.

Daniel

22nd February 2008, 10:27

Could you imagine people rioting in London if Scotland declared independance? :s

Depends if people there feel they have ownership over the land I guess.

Personally I think the overiding reason for this going through so easily was Serbia's dealings in ethnic cleansing in Croatia and Bosnia. What better for a reason for a minority to ask for independance than as protection from a country which has a track record of ethnic cleansing.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the one definite upshot of this whole deal. Yet another eastern European country which will soon be able to compete in Eurovision! Isn't that the best? :uhoh:

gadjo_dilo

22nd February 2008, 11:27

Yet another eastern European country which will soon be able to compete in Eurovision! Isn't that the best? :uhoh:

I can see their votes:
Greece, Cyprus, Spain, Russia, Romania : O points and lots of boo -s.
Uk: 1 point ( they were our friends but the song was awful as usually )
Slovenia: 2 points
Croatia: 3 points
Bosnia:4 points ( they got muslim guys )
Serbia:5 points ( don't deserve them but the guys from Mitrovica still has the right to vote )
Bulgaria:6 points ( nice guys; pretented to don't recognize our state but finally changed their minds)
France:7 points
Turkey: 8 points
Macedonia:10 points.
And finally, our 12 points go to....our brothers from Albania!!!!!!

ioan

22nd February 2008, 12:30

Could you imagine people rioting in London if Scotland declared independance? :s

We might know it when it happens.

ioan

22nd February 2008, 12:33

Camelopard

22nd February 2008, 13:11

It seems strange to me that independence is allowed for Kosovo, given the fact that once again instability would be brought to the region, yet the Kurds aren't allowed their own homeland.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/22/2170480.htm?section=justin

Yet again, double standards shown by the west. Wasn't one of the reasons given by the coallition of the willing (gullible) for the illegial invasion of Iraq was to protect Kurds in the north of the country that had been mistreated during Saddam's rule?

ioan

22nd February 2008, 13:14

It seems strange to me that independence is allowed for Kosovo, even given the fact that once again instability would be brought to the region, yet the Kurds aren't allowed their own homeland.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/22/2170480.htm?section=justin

Let's just say that someone (we all know who we are talking about) has an interest to create instability in the Balkans. What I don't understand in EU position in accepting this instability.

Daniel

22nd February 2008, 13:14

Back to what happens in Serbia.
Are the Americans and some of the Europeans happy with bringing violence back to the country?!
How on Earth did they think that this might unfold in a different way?

I just read that Russia considers using military force in case NATO and EU countries decide to ignore the previously taken UNO decisions.
This is shaping up like a nightmare.
The only conclusion I can come from reading your post is that it's a pity that Russia didn't get kicked more while it was down. Russia is a pain in the arse and they're concerned with no one else but themselves. At least with the US they can sometimes claim they've done some of their things for the good of the world or for people other than themselves. Vladimir is an evil little prick and we all know it. If it wasn't for gas Russia would be a shadow of it's former self and the world as a whole would be better off (perhaps not in an energy sense though). The sooner renewable energy takes off the sooner Russia can sod off and play in their own icy sandbox with themselves.

gadjo_dilo

22nd February 2008, 13:27

Russia is a pain in the arse and they're concerned with no one else but themselves. At least with the US they can sometimes claim they've done some of their things for the good of the world or for people other than themselves.

I thought the same when I was a kid
Now I come to the oldies words: either one or another, the same devil. . :laugh:

Daniel

22nd February 2008, 13:32

I thought the same when I was a kid
Now I come to the oldies words: either one or another, the same devil. . :laugh:
Better the devil not on your doorstep though ;)

gadjo_dilo

22nd February 2008, 13:43

Better the devil not on your doorstep though ;)

That's impossible. This devil is ubique. And likes to play the role of the universal gendarme. :laugh:

Daniel

22nd February 2008, 13:44

That's impossible. This devil is ubique. And likes to play the role of the universal gendarme. :laugh:
Perhaps. Would you not like to try a different devil next time though? :)

ioan

22nd February 2008, 13:45

The only conclusion I can come from reading your post is that it's a pity that Russia didn't get kicked more while it was down. Russia is a pain in the arse and they're concerned with no one else but themselves. At least with the US they can sometimes claim they've done some of their things for the good of the world or for people other than themselves.

I'll second gadjo_dilo, they are the same, really.
Russians also did good things for the World, I doubt that American's would have won the WWII if it wasn't for the Russians destroying the Germans in Europe.

Better the devil not on your doorstep though :)

They all have bombers and plane carriers! ;)

Daniel

22nd February 2008, 13:50

I'll second gadjo_dilo, they are the same, really.
Russians also did good things for the World, I doubt that American's would have won the WWII if it wasn't for the Russians destroying the Germans in Europe.

I agree about winning WW2 but in the end it's what you do after you win a war that decides whether you're liked or not. How many Eastern Europeans resent what happened to them because of the USSR after WW2 and how many Western Europeans have the same feelings towards the US and the UK :)

gadjo_dilo

22nd February 2008, 13:50

Perhaps. Would you not like to try a different devil next time though? :)

In our history we'd already exchanged a few devils so I don't rule out a new one in the future. At the end of the day every empire raised, flourished and had a decline. Everything is mortal except for God. :laugh:

gadjo_dilo

22nd February 2008, 13:57

I agree about winning WW2 but in the end it's what you do after you win a war that decides whether you're liked or not. How many Eastern Europeans resent what happened to them because of the USSR after WW2 and how many Western Europeans have the same feelings towards the US and the UK :)

In fact it was mr. Churchill the one who traced the infamous line that divided Europe :laugh:
And we also blame USA for not helping us. And for letting USSR to do that to us. Try to see an excellent movie that won an award at Cannes last year: California Dreamin' ( endless ). Not only it's an excellent comedy but you'll understand our feelings.

Daniel

22nd February 2008, 14:01

In fact it was mr. Churchill the one who traced the infamous line that divided Europe :laugh:
And we also blame USA for not helping us. And for letting USSR to do that to us. Try to see an excellent movie that won an award at Cannes last year: California Dreamin' ( endless ). Not only it's an excellent comedy but you'll understand our feelings.
At the end of the day there were reasons the US didn't come steaming in with the cavalry though aren't there :) If you look deeper into things the USA did help you by financially running the USSR into the ground with the arms race. Credit where credit is due I say! ;)

Mark

22nd February 2008, 14:07

If you are trying to say the US/UK should have pushed back the Soviets from Eastern Europe? Come on, we'd just endured 6 years of total war, we didn't have the capability to do anything.

Azumanga Davo

22nd February 2008, 14:12

Could you imagine people rioting in London if Scotland declared independance? :s

Most of them would be jealous Australian bar staff... ;)

gadjo_dilo

22nd February 2008, 14:13

At the end of the day there were reasons the US didn't come steaming in with the cavalry though aren't there :) If you look deeper into things the USA did help you by financially running the USSR into the ground with the arms race. Credit where credit is due I say! ;)

Sorry but I don't delude myself they did it for us. It was in USA's interest to weaken its rival. In the meantime we weren't patiently waiting the right moment. We were deported, arrested, tortured, living in cold and dark, etc. Some of us survived, many of us died in the communist prisons.

gadjo_dilo

22nd February 2008, 14:20

If you are trying to say the US/UK should have pushed back the Soviets from Eastern Europe? Come on, we'd just endured 6 years of total war, we didn't have the capability to do anything.

Of course not. It was easier to sacrifice some unknown people from the east. Who had to endure only other 50 years.
Now seriously, I can't understand how USA as a winner of the war accepted the situation.

Daniel

22nd February 2008, 14:22

Of course not. It was easier to sacrifice some unknown people from the east. Who had to endure only other 50 years.
Now seriously, I can't understand how USA as a winner of the war accepted the situation.
Are you 100% sure that the US knew for sure what was going to happen to you?

Even if they did what solution was there in the short term? I didn't have to live through most of it but a cold war is usually better than a World War in my humble opinion.

Daniel

22nd February 2008, 14:27

Sorry but I don't delude myself they did it for us. It was in USA's interest to weaken its rival. In the meantime we weren't patiently waiting the right moment. We were deported, arrested, tortured, living in cold and dark, etc. Some of us survived, many of us died in the communist prisons.
I think you should go and watch Charlie Wilson's War. It'll make you realise that the USA's intentions aren't always so selfish but you will see that their execution sucks at times.

I can't possibly begin to understand what it would be like to live in a county where you could be deported, arrested, tortured, living in the cold and dark. I'd be lying if I said I feel your pain or something empty like that. I've always been a free person thankfully so for me to say I feel what you felt would be a straight up lie.

I think in the end what happened was the lesser of two evils for the world in general. A lot of people were tortured and killed but for a much much higher number of people the cold war scarcely interupted their lives at all. I don't see how out and out war can be preferable to that for the whole world.

Mark

22nd February 2008, 14:30

Of course not. It was easier to sacrifice some unknown people from the east. Who had to endure only other 50 years.
Now seriously, I can't understand how USA as a winner of the war accepted the situation.

Accepted is a bit strong, tollerated would be closer to the mark. I go back to my previous point, it's not like the USA or UK could have done anything about it even if they had wanted to. The only way to have solved the problem was to go to war with the Soviets, a war they could quite probably have lost, then where does it leave us?

Daniel

22nd February 2008, 14:31

Accepted is a bit strong, tollerated would be closer to the mark. I go back to my previous point, it's not like the USA or UK could have done anything about it even if they had wanted to. The only way to have solved the problem was to go to war with the Soviets, a war they could quite probably have lost, then where does it leave us?
Shut up comrade Mark or the commisars will come and shoot us!

gadjo_dilo

22nd February 2008, 14:32

Are you 100% sure that the US knew for sure what was going to happen to you?

Even if they did what solution was there in the short term? I didn't have to live through most of it but a cold war is usually better than a World War in my humble opinion.

At least they could have warned us to stop fighting ourselves. Many people organised a resistance in the mountains hoping we'll get help. They finished tragically. So did their families.
OK, It's complicated but don't say they were angels.

P.S. Must go now. Too bad, the debate has become hot. A nice weekend to everyone!!!

Daniel

22nd February 2008, 14:35

At least they could have warned us to stop fighting ourselves. Many people organised a resistance in the mountains hoping we'll get help. They finished tragically. So did their families.
OK, It's complicated but don't say they were angels.

P.S. Must go now. Too bad, the debate has become hot. A nice weekend to everyone!!!

Be assured that the resistance helped in the bringing the USSR down. Having to build nukes was expensive but so was having to supress the resistance movements. Everyone played their part. The Western World were just lucky that their part was a bit cleaner than yours. I'm sure if the situations were reversed you wouldn't have come in to save us at great cost of life to everyone and I think this is the only sensible way to think about it.

Have a good weekend :up:

gadjo_dilo

22nd February 2008, 14:35

I think you should go and watch Charlie Wilson's War. It'll make you realise that the USA's intentions aren't always so selfish but you will see that their execution sucks at times.

If that's a film, forget it. I'm stupid but not naive.

Daniel

22nd February 2008, 14:37

If that's a film, forget it. I'm stupid but not naive.

Largely based on facts :)

Basically about the US supporting the Afghan's in pushing the Russians but ****ing up in the end ;)

gadjo_dilo

22nd February 2008, 14:39

Everyone played their part. The Western World were just lucky that their part was a bit cleaner than yours. I'm sure if the situations were reversed you wouldn't have come in to save us at great cost of life to everyone and I think this is the only sensible way to think about it.

Have a good weekend :up:

In fact I don't blame you for non-intervention. I can understand it. But for the way your leaders decided for our lives.
And please let me go home. I should have been gone for 10 min.

Daniel

22nd February 2008, 14:56

In fact I don't blame you for non-intervention. I can understand it. But for the way your leaders decided for our lives.
And please let me go home. I should have been gone for 10 min.
Go home! You're a free man aren't you? :p

Like I said it's impossible for me to put myself in your position so I shall try to do so no further :)

Camelopard

22nd February 2008, 15:10

Go home! You're a free man aren't you? :p

Ummm, actually no :) . A free person, yes!

fandango

22nd February 2008, 19:05

Could you imagine people rioting in London if Scotland declared independance? :s

That's worth discussing more. Why would they riot, or why wouldn't they? And is it a good thing or a bad thing?

Twenty years ago I couldn't imagine the end of the cold war and then Bing! in the next few years things changed so much.

BDunnell

22nd February 2008, 20:32

Of course not. It was easier to sacrifice some unknown people from the east. Who had to endure only other 50 years.
Now seriously, I can't understand how USA as a winner of the war accepted the situation.

I think it's important to remember that, in 1945, there was simply no possibility of the Western Allies doing anything about the actions of the Soviets. They were still our allies, after all, and the Western leaders still harboured genuine ambitions of reaching a peaceful agreement with the USSR about Europe's post-war borders. For most of the period that followed, Western leaders were concerned about the prospect of escalation to nuclear conflict that any provocation of the Soviets might have caused. This (amongst other factors, admittedly) is why the erection of the Berlin Wall did not lead to a stronger Western reaction, despite the fact that it was an appalling affront to human rights.

airshifter

24th February 2008, 01:04

The unfortunate reality is that in any conflict, we never have the advantage of the hindsight that history later teaches us. We will never know if pressure on Soviet Russia could have changed history for the better or for the worse.

To coin a term used in the thread, we are often the devil regardless of which course of action is taken in any conflict. The only thing that changes is which parties will consider other parties the devil.

I cannot speak with certainty over what might have happened, but I suspect that the consideration of a nuclear escalation was a primary thought in any western countries mind. Having been born shorty after the Cuban Missle Crisis, the nuclear threat was still very real when I joined the military. Once again if we had the benefit of hindsight, it may be possible that if the US continued the Pacific campaign without the use of the nukes, the war and that threat may have ended without bringing to reality the brutal destruction that these devices bring upon all people. I think this was the real "devil" that this war brought to light, and the lives of all of us have changed because of it.

As pointed out by gadjo_dilo, neither the US or western powers were angels in all of this. Our actions as with most countries were primarily in the interest of our countries and not all countries. Just as one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, I suspect depending on your point of view often one mans devil is anothers angel. Even the difference between good and evil often becomes complex.

Camelopard

24th February 2008, 11:16

This could get interesting:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/24/2171039.htm?section=justin

Roamy

25th February 2008, 01:06

So we now have a new country in Europe - Kosovo.

I'm somewhat taken back at the opposition to the move from some quarters, to my mind I'd always thought that if the citizens of a particular province or region choose to govern themselves then it's not for anyone to stand in their way. This applies as much in Kosovo as well as the likes of Scotland etc.

Mark this is clearly our fault!! Just ask any Serb or EKI

gadjo_dilo

25th February 2008, 07:58

Ha! I'm back and I'm less nervous than last week. After all, spring is in the air and yesterday we celebrated a sort of local Valentine's Day.
Now that I'm relaxed I agree with those who say "that was no possibility of the Western Allies doing anything about the actions of the Soviets". But in these circimstances don't take out our eyes with things like "the USA did help you by financially running the USSR into the ground with the arms race". The real thing is that USA don't help anybody, they follow their own interest and sometimes it may overlap with the interest of others.
We don't owe anything to them. But they had a moral obligation to us.

Unfortunately love wasn't in the air for all the guys in my country. A few idiots have already waved the flags of a so-called Szekely Land right in the middle of the country. Of course they'll end up by eating a big s*** but their shameless atitude is quite annoying.