Trazi Vise
Amicus
Today's "church" has NOTHING to do with religion.
Posts: 3,126
|
Post by Trazi Vise on May 14, 2009 5:00:17 GMT -5
It doesn't matter. But when you make coments that are not true, it really should be edited cause you are projecting the wrong info to the members.
For years now you have disrespected myself and humilated me for no reason whatsoever, forget that some of our views are different. I would ask you to stop, because one day you will be publicly humiliated like you have never know before, and maybe then maybe you will grow up. It's a small world, never forget that.
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on May 14, 2009 5:32:06 GMT -5
WWI? IMHO two major events - 1) Bosnia became AH protectorate in 1878 2) Annexation of Bosnia by AH in 1908 destabilized Balkan fatally and were hidden reasons of WWI. Your thoughts? I don't understand what you mean by the question? Are you suggesting that AH preplanned or agitated for a world wide war? To say it was the beginning of the AH occupation of Bosnia that started the destabilization of the Balkans would mean that prior to the occupation the Balkans were stable. It really depends on what you mean by stable? In terms of bloodshed, the Ottoman's , for the most part, kept a tight lid on that for the majority of their rule. However, conflicts existed even before the AH occupation as evidenced by the spontaneous uprisings in the Balkans outside of the AH controlled territory. If anything, AH probably had stability in mind by using Bosnia as a 'buffer' between themselves and the OE. Bosnia also allowed the Austrians to have leverage in preventing Russian plans to expand their sphere of influence (via Serbia) to the Adriatic and the Austrians were not the only ones interested in containing Russia or the OE. AH did not enact draconian laws to radically shift the currently existing culture in Bosnia. For the most part, the Muslims were treated as culturally autonomous even allowed to keep a great deal of their land holdings granted to them by the Ottoman system. However, AH also allowed for greater local non-Muslim participation in government administration of Bosnia which sparked the hostility of some well-established Muslim upper class. As far as the Bosnian Serbs were concerned, they arguably had much more freedom and leeway to organize under AH administration than under Ottoman rule. As evidenced in neighboring Croatia, the Serbs , an overall minority, were considered political equals with the Croats. Serbia had a keen interest in Bosnia not only for its own purposes but also for that of their close ally , Russia. Thanks to Russian support, Serbia was able to consolidate a workable political base for statehood in the 19th century, more far along than Croatia or Bosnia, and considered itself the rightful successor to lead an incorporated monarchy of South Slavs. Locally, Croatian leaders also had the same attitude but did not necessarily include Serbia in a future project of independent statehood of Slavs or an equal third entity on par with Austria and Hungary, respectively. The Muslims found themselves a minority in their own country and gradually lost political influence in the new AH deal. Future incorporation into the OE seemed more bleak as time passed on, especially with the the political climate in Turkey changing signifying the end of the centuries old Ottoman Empire. The Muslims' own identity was deeply tied to the Ottoman culture and they found themselves caught between rapidly evolving nation-state politics between more numerous Croats and Serbs, and as an extension, other European major powers besides the OE. Some Muslims culturally and politically aligned themselves with Croatians while others did with Serbs but the majority of them wanted some kind of recognized autonomous legality for Bosnia itself and this latter desire was met particularly by the Hungarian entity of the AH Empire under Hedevary's administration of Bosnia. The Hungarians' antipathy towards Croatian nationalism fueled most of this as they also empowered the Serbs to take on more anti-Croat politics in Croatia. Due to Bosnia's rather large Orthodox Serbian population, Serbia was able to establish information and propaganda channels within Bosnia, even set up a secret cult like organization called the 'Black Hand.' Not all of the Serbs in Bosnia were following the Black Hand's agenda but plenty of influential ones were. Funding for the Black Hand also came via Russian connections as Russia was deeply interested in expanding Serbia's holdings to the Adriatic and , as an extension, its own sphere of influence. This would likely achieve several security goals for Russia. One, deeply crippling the Ottomans' influence the region, two , establishing commerce on the Med, and three , having a southern stronghold to flank the German states of AH and Prussian Germany. I don't think AH or any other major power desired an all out war. Rather, they attempted to move their pieces carefully to establish preemptive measures to prevent possible aggression by enemies. The Balkans were merely large segment of the chessboard.
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on May 14, 2009 5:37:50 GMT -5
1) All that might be true but it doesn't really tell us how the locals viewed the situation. Legality is not something objectively binding as written law changes on whim. The 'legal' argument is a weak one because of what you said on your 3rd point.
2) Is true.
3) That does not explain if Muslim land holdings were justified. It might have been 'legal' in the Ottoman system for the majority of Muslims to be given land subsidies over the non-Muslims but whether such a legality should be upheld is a separate question.
In 1930s Germany, after Hitler took power, it was illegal , according to German law , for Jews to own capital ( land , shops, etc). Should such a legality be upheld in a later administration? Is is justified? The fact is that in the OE people were given land subsidies on the basis of their religious standing which would explain the vast 'ownership' of land by the Muslim segment of the population. The same can be said about the European feudal system as nobles were allowed to legally own land based on their class status but obviously it would be hard to justify their perpetual ownership after the fall of feudal law. It seems much more moral to recognize land ownership belonging to the people that produce on that land and give it value rather than some religious or class standing.
You are still correct in terms of suggesting that government of Serbia has no real justified claim to land in Bosnia but that is a separate question from whether Serbs in Bosnia ought to own the land they lived on and produced on for centuries especially if the prior system was an obstruction of ownership based on one's religious standing like in the OE.
|
|
|
Post by SKORIC on May 14, 2009 5:56:14 GMT -5
Heres a few pages scanned from the book "Europe in the 20th century" (ignore the highlighter that was from back in school lol) This shows that Serbia was not looking for a war and werent ready for a war at that time, especially after it just came out of 2 balkan wars. It shows that the Serbian Govt didnt support the black hand (but feared to destroy them because of public opinion). It shows that the Serbian govt didnt plan the assasination and when our prime minister heard about it he tried warning Vienna but the message didnt get across. It shows that Serbia's response to the ultimatum was reasonable and even German Keiser Wilhelm said "every reason for war disapears" It shows that alot of conspiracy theories came out of the assasination and that even Germany was blamed by some, so saying that the English were behind it could just be another conspiracy theory. Anyways read up:
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 14, 2009 8:59:00 GMT -5
fazlinho,
The reasons DID matter much and the reasons were Russian-Ottoman war. Why couldn't AH have made such agreement before the war? Our people wouldn't have had to fight and die. If AH actually blackmailed Russia into signing agreement according to which AH occupied all of Bosnia against the will of large part of Bosnia population, that fact was bound to bite AH in the tail in the nearest future. It was difficult for AH to control so large percentage of unloyal population.
If you are forced to sign tricky agreement against your interests how will it effect you?
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 14, 2009 9:07:27 GMT -5
fazlinho, But one of the main reasons of Russian-Turkish war in 1878 was Bosnian Serb uprising. occamzcrazor to fazlinho: How about democratic will of large group of Bosnia population - Bosnian Serbs? IMHO Bosnia should have been somehow divided between Serbia and AH (or Ottomans) in 1878 and population exchange should have been conducted. occamzcrazor, I am sure AH didn't want war, let along World War, it just attacked another country and expected it to surrender without resistance...
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 14, 2009 9:11:20 GMT -5
Russia didn't want WWI, since it wasn't strong that time, that's why Russia gave advice to Serbian politicians to agree with almost all points of ultimatum.
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 14, 2009 9:18:35 GMT -5
occamzcrazor,
I absolutely agree that relative Balkan stability under Ottomans was based on force not loyalty, but after the liberation the region got chance to become really stable, unfortunately that chance was lost mostly "thank" to AH politics.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on May 14, 2009 11:12:41 GMT -5
It doesn't matter. But when you make coments that are not true, it really should be edited cause you are projecting the wrong info to the members. ^ here are 100 bucks for anyone who understands the meaning of this. I told you to point out those comments that are not true I will always reply to you in the same way, don't ever think I'll stop. If you think I won't reply when you call me a comedian than I have bad news for you: I won't. Many more members like manijak and zgembo share my similiar views, you really say dumb things - you make fun of people and expect to not be made fun of. I don't think I am the one who needs to grow up. When challenged to point out what are the wrong facts I exposed you don't do it - don't expect to be taken seriously by me. Go on and do anything you want to do, I'm here waiting to see anything you have in mind. And the topic isn't about how locals viewed the situation. Legality changes in time but every time and era knows what's legal and what's not and in the Europe of that time Bosnia was Ottoman land and as such the state could do what it wanted. I didn't say it's nice, moral, perfect I said what Ottomans did was legal, which it was. It depends on what you mean with justified. Under a legal pov, it was perfectly justified, as that was the system of the Ottoman empire, which had it's obvious reasons, at least to me. If you want to dwelve into moralisms, I'm not discussing about it. My 3rd point meant to show how Bosnia's territory was not majority Serb land, but Bosniak land. It wasn't about anyone's religious standing, if no Christian could own lands you wouldn't even see that 6% there. The thing if muslims cared the most about land owning. As you know Jews started to buy lands in Palestine, which was part of OE, so there was no special rule against non-muslims. Anyways, the poor Serbs introduced the agrar reform in Bosnia which left Bosniak families without the land they owned and my family had to migrate to Turkey because of that. Do you understand Russia was there in the Congress of Berlin and that Russia left it to AH? It was an agreement of the major world powers, if Russia didn't give it's consent AH couldn't occupy Bosnia. To Russia it was enough to see Bulgaria Moldavia and Serbia happy, it didn't care about Bosnia at all. When AH troops came do you know who fought ? Bosniaks. Not Serbs. Read about those years and you'll see no Serbs fighting against AH troops in the years of the occupation. The truth is they didn't care that much about AH as you seem they did. What's funny to me is reading how the Bosnian orthodox population supposedly wanted so much this union, when we don't see any real strong mobilization for it in those years. I'm just talking historical facts wise. They even fought against other Serbs in Serbia. I'm not saying they were happy because of it, I'm saying it's not true this unification thing was so present among the orthodox population, which was not. It occurred because Serbia ended up being a winner in ww1, not because of anything else.
|
|
|
Post by soko on May 14, 2009 11:21:24 GMT -5
The Ottomans, the Russian Empire, the Austro Hungarian Empire, and the likes have brought nothing but misery to the Balkans.. plotting the little ethnic groups up against each other out of their own intrests... don't get what the arguing is about
|
|
Trazi Vise
Amicus
Today's "church" has NOTHING to do with religion.
Posts: 3,126
|
Post by Trazi Vise on May 14, 2009 11:33:52 GMT -5
lol oh there are other people that think like you, so you are in the majority, oh you must feel so good and tough...you will never grow up...ever it seems. Yes a comedian, that's a nice comment not like what you refer me to as; I don't see how that is a negative comment.
I never expect anything I say to be taken seriously by you and do you think I care??? NO. I have never expected that in years. The thing is unlike most of you guys, I don't need to be accepted by the other people here, and by my peers. One can feel good and strong standing alone, not like the insecure people here, that curse, put down and talk about other's behind their backs just because they have differing views.
If you have any other issues PM me or admin to sort out, instead of venting your unfound frustrations in a public domain.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on May 14, 2009 11:38:03 GMT -5
k thx bye
|
|
|
Post by tito on May 14, 2009 12:26:39 GMT -5
The Ottomans, the Russian Empire, the Austro Hungarian Empire, and the likes have brought nothing but misery to the Balkans.. Actually the glorious Ottomans liberated the Balkans and the Austro-Hungarian empire modernized Bosnia, Russia on the other hand was just a factor of destabilization.
|
|
|
Post by manijak on May 14, 2009 12:34:43 GMT -5
How is writing something on a public forum behind your back?
And Illyria,
It is not your opinion that people have an issue with because you rarley debate whats infront of you. Fazla made a very good reply to inaccurate things you stated and your reply was a long, three paragraph statement, taking him to task on one small point that had nothing to do with the jist of the topic.
I don't post about every subject because I keep my mouth shut when I don't understand something. And if I do, I'll reply to what is being stated with detail.
|
|
MiG
Amicus
Republika
Posts: 4,793
|
Post by MiG on May 14, 2009 12:38:43 GMT -5
The Ottomans, the Russian Empire, the Austro Hungarian Empire, and the likes have brought nothing but misery to the Balkans.. Actually the glorious Ottomans liberated the Balkans and the Austro-Hungarian empire modernized Bosnia, Russia on the other hand was just a factor of destabilization. ...Is your own personal view. I actually wouldn't mind the prolonged existence of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, as it would have evolved into a Confederate Union; thus giving more and more autonomous power to the Slavic people, and more importantly Croatia (At least for me). Had that have happened, the wars we as a people took part in wouldn't have happened, and we would probably be at par, or a little more advanced than the rest of Europe, not to mention way more numerous. There would be a lot more stability in our region, that's for sure. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Greater_AustriaBut, different factors did bring the Slavic people to rise up against their oppressors and Imperial Governments, simply due to the mentality of the German Elite. But that would have eventually changed, as the Germans were a minority and would have been one, in such a Confederacy.
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 14, 2009 13:17:24 GMT -5
fazlinho,
If you claim to be a supporter of democracy you have to be interested in how locals viewed the situation. Just choose who you are - democrat or Ottoman's apologist? In Ottoman time law favored Muslims, so what? Time has changed and the law has changed.
I'll try to explain it one more time - if if Russia hadn't given it's consent Russia would have had a war with AH (and most probably some other countries) over Bosnia. In the other words AH would have tried to take Bosnia by force or by supporting Turkey in its war against Russia.
How can you say that Russia didn't care about Bosnia at all if Bosnian Serb uprising was one of the main reason why Russia went to war with Turkey. I would understand if you say that Russia didn't care much about opinions of Bosnian Muslims that time though.
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 14, 2009 13:31:44 GMT -5
Of course I am not suggesting that AH preplanned world wide war. I mean that AH made the war possible by taking insolently what didn't belong to it. Again of course AH didn't preplanned the war, AH hoped it would be able to get away with its loot.
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on May 14, 2009 13:42:15 GMT -5
Sure, whatever that means. I guess the majority of Bosnian Serbs can have a vote and vote to join Serbian monarchy. However, whether they may take land drawn arbitrarily is a separate question not to mention that back then a lot of them lived cheek and jawl with non-Serbs that probably did not have the same sentiments. Could one transfer the ownership of his home and property to the Serbian monarch but force his neighbor down the road to do the same? If this democracy you speak of denies just property rights for everyone and not just a select few then it really shows this kind of democracy is nothing more than a tyranny and cannot possibly negotiate property rights if it denies them in the first place.
Sounds very draconian. Do you really believe that this would somehow prevent war and violence? Do you really think you can take some nationalist sentiment and willy-nilly declare new borders and dictate who lives where without the increased probability of violence and war?
Any policy of the sort would have been very unsettling for any of the major powers interested in the region. It would mean they would have to devote limited resources on calming inter-ethnic tensions that would surely be escalated by this madness of forced population exchange. Millions of people dislocated , forced to move , just to please the political whims and geographical fetishes of some tyrants on all sides?
So I suppose you were completely in support of Hitler demanding the Jews leave in droves in the 1930s , because of they don't, dire consequences await them. What would you suggest be done to the people that don't want to leave their homes in this population exchange you're talking about? Camps? Ovens? which form of violence sounds about right to you?
By 1914 , given all that's transpired between Serbia and Austria , plus the seeming peace agreements between Prussian Germany and Russia, the Austrians certainly did want to weaken Serbia's influence in the region even entertaining the possibility of war. In my estimation the Austrians were calling Russia's bluff to aid Serbia and if the Austrians wanted to attack Serbia they would have to make it look like Serbia's fault. Plenty of evidence to use but the ultimatum was basically show to put the burden of guilt on Serbia. Such is the nature of war where one side has to claim moral superiority over the other. I was stating that I don't think its true the Austria 'preplanned' a war since their occupation of Bosnia. Events that followed from then led to the 1914 climate.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on May 14, 2009 13:46:10 GMT -5
The topic was about the legality of the actions. I am interested in how they viewed the situation but that was not what we were talking about in that point. How locals viewed the situation, I explained it in my second point - the majority supported AH by the time of WW1. And that's all I have to say about the topic. I am for democracy and for historical facts and history mustn't have any moral judging and comparison with nowadays because they are pointless in the context of our discussion. If we are talking about opinions, what do you want me to tell you? Bad bad ottomans? I can't say that because I feel how their rule, obviously taking into account the era we are talking about, overall was good. They had their very bad points but when I compare it with all the actions of other foreign rules, I view them in a very positive light. Which mustn't mean others have to share my view. What would AH do is purely fiction, all I know is that Russia signed that paper and that's her responsibility. Izetbegovic signed a paper in 1995 and I too am convinced if he didn't nowadays Bosnia would be a better place but what can you do, it's our responsability to take the best of that paper and change things for the better relying on that paper. Russia was at war with the ottoman empire since the end of the XVII century. It entered the war because Serbia declared war against the Ottoman Empire, and was losing the war. Which happened 2 years after the rebellion in Bosnia was put to an end. Russia happily traded Bosnia for other gains. "On July 8 Russia's Alexander II and Prince Gorchakov met Austria-Hungary's Franz Joseph I and Count Andrássy in the Reichstadt castle in Bohemia. No written agreement was made, but during the discussions, Russia agreed to support Austrian occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Austria-Hungary, in exchange, agreed to the return of Southern Bessarabia lost by Russia during the Crimean War, and Russian annexation of the port of Batumi on the east coast of the Black Sea. Bulgaria was to become autonomous (independent, according to the Russian records)" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1877%E2%80%931878)#cite_note-28
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on May 14, 2009 14:06:21 GMT -5
So clearly you thought such a system of legality was immoral. Furthermore, you cannot possibly support legalizing immorality, can you? Why use the argument of a legality that involved preferred land ownership on the basis of religious association? One can clearly say such a legality was immoral and not illegal at the same time. Hitler robbing Jews of their property in the 1930s was perfectly legal btw and I think most of us here would condemn the person that uses 'legality' to defend it.
It can be 'justified' according to the legal fiction of the time. However, can it be morally justified? When we try to assert such a system was right or wrong we inevitably must deal with the question of morality. It seemed to me that you were more than stating a fact. It seemed to me that you were using the premise of Ottoman legal code to justify a conclusion of moral permissibility.
I don't understand ' the majority' of land was Bosniak. I mean, which Bosniaks? Are you saying all the Bosniaks had some quota share of land ownership? Actually, I would argue that only a few Bosniak Muslims owned vast amounts of territory which would mean the majority of Bosniak peasants found themselves effectively as serfs to some landlord just like most of the Christian and non-muslim neighbors.
Ottoman legal code prohibited Rayah from participating in government , the army, and land title ownership. There were no official title deeds given to Rayah except for very few cases in which Franciscans can own land adjunct to religious structures. But they were not considered actual subjects of the Sultan per say but rather Papal extensions and were able to work out arrangements with the Ottomans based on Papal persuasion.
Some Christians were allowed to administer some land holdings but this , at best ,was secondary ownership. They still had to pay huge sums of wealth to the local Ottoman administrators where such a tax was not paid by the Ummah. In other words , they cannot profit off the land itself like Ummah could.
On top of that , only a few Muslims in Bosnia had title deed to the vast amounts of land. Most of the muslims were in the same boat as non-muslims in terms of land ownership. The land worked , especially in the rural regions, was vastly non-muslim as well.
|
|