|
Post by soko on May 14, 2009 14:44:02 GMT -5
but the same argument can be used for land ownership when the land was given to a few christians, hence this whole argument is meaningless..
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 14, 2009 15:40:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 14, 2009 15:47:41 GMT -5
Yes, that was cause of the events, but all that had started with Bosnian Serb uprising.
Don't say something you don't know. Again, Russia had to agree with AH occupation of Bosnia to avoid war on two or even more fronts.
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 14, 2009 15:52:53 GMT -5
occamsrazor,
In your posts you try to prove that Bosnian Serbs didn't have right to take Bosnian land and join Serbia against the will of their non-Serb Bosnian neighbors. IMHO the same logic could be applied when we are talking about the right of those Bosnian residents who favored AH over Serbia - they didn't have right to attach Bosnia to AH against the will of their Serbian neighbors.
...and what right did AH have to take all of Bosnia in 1878? Why do you think Serbia had less rights for Bosnia?
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 14, 2009 16:09:11 GMT -5
Please lets talk without artificial accusation of supporting Hitler's politics, will you? In spite of all difficulties history knows a few rather successful examples of population exchanges. I didn't take part in planning them, so I don't know how to avoid troubles, probably a lot of people could be encouraged to move by financial support, those who strictly oppose could be left alone.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on May 15, 2009 4:37:55 GMT -5
By nowadays standards, yes it was immoral. By the standards back than, it created a good system. I am not supporting anything, I'm stating how things were. If you can't distinguish the system of the Ottoman empire from the holocaust I feel sorry for you, I don't see any comparison.
It was all in your head, I wasn't implying anything more than what I wrote.
Man that's holocaust.
The tanzimat reform was already performed.
What? I hope you are kidding me. Every muslim had to pay the tax for land ownership, (let's not forget the fact that a muslim land owner spent most of his life abroad in wars fighting so his use of the land was almost non-existent). I really don't know where you pulled this from.
I don't see how this goes against anything I said.
The 15th of January Russia made a written agreement with Austro-Hungary guaranteeing it's (Russia's) neutrality to the latter (AH) as for the right of occupying BiH. They also agreed on the previous points of the Reihstag agreement.
Is my translation correct? If it is, I don't see where does it imply AH would have waged war on Russia if it occupied Bosnia?? Quite the contrary I see Russia implying it doesn't have any problem with AH's occupation of it.
All that started in 1697 when the first war occurred. And as Russia didn't enter war when the riot erupted, but when Serbia was losing the war, I see what the reason was.
^ Which doesn't contradict what I said.
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 15, 2009 14:15:05 GMT -5
No. The 15th of January Russia made a written agreement with Austro-Hungary guaranteeing it's (AH) neutrality [in Russian-Turkish war, otherwise AH would have supported Turkey against Russia] for the right of occupying BiH. They also agreed on the previous points of the Reihstag agreement.
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 15, 2009 14:25:45 GMT -5
I want you to understand that you can't simply ignore opinions and views of 1/3 - 1/2 Bosnian population.
Because you (your people) belonged to privileged class because of your religion during their ruling. I don't blame you - everybody like privileges.
|
|
|
Post by tito on May 15, 2009 16:17:03 GMT -5
I want you to understand that you can't simply ignore opinions and views of 1/3 - 1/2 Bosnian population. Why not?
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on May 15, 2009 19:21:43 GMT -5
No. The 15th of January Russia made a written agreement with Austro-Hungary guaranteeing it's (AH) neutrality [in Russian-Turkish war, otherwise AH would have supported Turkey against Russia] for the right of occupying BiH. They also agreed on the previous points of the Reihstag agreement. AH agreed on it's own neutrality as for Russia's right of occupying BiH?? Even if that was the case, which could be, they later obviously changed their mind and left it to AH to take other gains. And you obviously can't ignore the will of the majority either. But as I have pointed it out many times and will continue to point out - who fought AH when they occupied Bosnia?? Muslims! not Orthodoxs, because they preffered it to the Ottoman Empire anyways. You just need to check some datas from that time - the Orthodox population augmented, the number of orthodox churches did too, Serb shops and schools also did. Do you wonder why you never hear about "the great oppression of Serbs" in AH? because overall they liked it in AH. Real, and I mean real problems started when pan-slavist activities started to be undertaken against the Emperor that culminated in the assassination of Archduke ferdinand. I challenge any Serb on the forum to inform us about that great oppression they suffered under Austrians (prior to ww1), because the truth is, they didn't, they liked it. ^ Obviously, I don't deny it's just a Bosniak pov. Although many other Westeners share it.
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 16, 2009 12:37:14 GMT -5
Again, no. AH agreed on it's own neutrality as for AH's right of occupying BiH. In other words in case of war Russia would do the fighting and Austria would derive most of the advantage. Great.
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 16, 2009 12:42:26 GMT -5
Many Westerners know favor you, so they share your POV as a sign of solidarity with you and Turkey which is their ally.
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 16, 2009 12:49:24 GMT -5
Gavrilo Princip If Serbs liked it there in AH then why pan-slavist activities started to be undertaken against the Emperor?
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 16, 2009 12:54:05 GMT -5
tito, Do you mean that Bosniaks opinions could be ignored? Oh, tito... What would real Tito say? He wouldn't allow you to use his name as a nick...
|
|
|
Post by tito on May 16, 2009 13:18:18 GMT -5
Do you mean that Bosniaks opinions could be ignored? The Bosniak opinion was ignored. Now answer my question. Oh, tito... What would real Tito say? He would say that Bosnia was never a part of Serbia and that Bosnia’s historical borders must be respected no matter what the orthodox minority in Bosnia thinks.
|
|
MiG
Amicus
Republika
Posts: 4,793
|
Post by MiG on May 16, 2009 13:24:18 GMT -5
^ No he wouldn't; he'd probably smack the shit out of 90% of the people from Ex-Yugo, and due to the blatant ignorance of everyone, probably kill himself for the better.
|
|
|
Post by tito on May 16, 2009 13:31:53 GMT -5
Gavrilo Princip Gavrilo Princip did NOT fight the OCUPATION of Bosnia(1878-1909), he was fighting the legal government. And to make things worst he did it in order to expand Serbia’s borders at the expense of mother Bosnia(which makes him not only a terrorist but also a traitor,, much like the separatists today who choose to be loyal to neighboring countries instead of mother Bosnia).
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on May 16, 2009 13:59:47 GMT -5
He would probably say that Bosnia was part of Yugoslavia and shouldn't have tried to separate.
|
|
|
Post by tito on May 16, 2009 14:20:48 GMT -5
He would probably say that Bosnia.. I asked you a question and instead of answering it you ask me what Tito would have said about ignoring the fascist ideals of the orthodox minority in Bosnia and I answer that he would say that Bosnia was never a part of Serbia and that Bosnia’s historical borders must be respected no matter what the orthodox minority in Bosnia thinks. So instead of answering your own questions how about you answer my question to you?
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on May 16, 2009 14:39:59 GMT -5
Again, no. AH agreed on it's own neutrality as for AH's right of occupying BiH. In other words in case of war Russia would do the fighting and Austria would derive most of the advantage. Great. I swear to God I don't get it. How can you be neutral if you are occupying a place? You mean that AH signed that AH signed that they wouldn't occupy BiH (is that what you mean with "neutrality"?) I was talking about the system of the Ottoman Empire. I don't even have to comment a claim that people praise the Ottoman Empire becuse they feel Bosniak's suffering through the last war. And LOL about Turkey being felt as an ally by the West. If Turkey is an ally, so is Russia. As Tito said, that was almost 36 years after Austrian troops entered in Bosnia. Because *somehow* all the Serbs that engaged in anti AH activities passed through Serbia and there acquired such expansionist ideals. Those ideals were imported from Serbia. He wouldn't have given BiH that right in first place if he thought that.
|
|