|
Post by fazlinho on Apr 29, 2009 4:44:11 GMT -5
How can you call it a liberation when another occupier came? Anyhow, it was a sad day for Bosniaks, as they were cut off from the rest of the caliphate thus other muslims. That's also when Bosniak migrations started, and would continue for a long time. Bosnian Serbs only, it was a Serb thing only as a matter of fact, we had a true great Bosnian uprising many years before that one. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bosnian_uprisingQuite frankly it was to stay in the Ottoman empire, that's why we fought against Austrian troops but it didn't work. Although very quickly, when we saw that AH doesn't have any discriminatory policy towards muslims we accepted that rule, as it developed Bosnia (Sarajevo was the first city in Europe to have a "from dawn till dusk" operational tram system). What we never wanted was being dominated by Serbs or Croats (as history has showed we were right about it). To me the best time was "under AH", followed by "now".
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on Apr 29, 2009 5:18:49 GMT -5
That's OK, but as I see it, AH played Bosniaks-Muslims against Bosnian Serbs and Serbia.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Apr 29, 2009 5:31:27 GMT -5
Well they played us saying be who you are, developing Bosnia while Serbs and Serbia wanted to assimilate/exterminate us... I can see who I'd pick up. In the whole post AH - WWII period Bosnia, especially Bosniaks got nothing at all.
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on Apr 29, 2009 5:41:52 GMT -5
Do you think it would have been better in 1878 to divide Bosnia between Serbia and AH? Was it possible to divide territories or/and carry out exchange of population? As far as I remember there were a half or even a little bit more Bosnian Serbs in Bosnia that time, what if they didn't want to belong to Ottomans or AH?
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Apr 29, 2009 5:59:10 GMT -5
Do you think it would have been better in 1878 to divide Bosnia between Serbia and AH? Absolutely not, because people were always mixed. You had Bosnians of all 3 faiths in every city. No... because they decided it on Berlin's congress. If they wanted to give territories to Serbia they'd have done it that day. Yes at that time, slightly more than Bosniaks, but never in the history of Bosnia did anyone have a 50%> more majority. (estimations only now give Bosniaks to more than 50%). About the question "what if they didn't want it" I can only say history played it's part. We didn't want to end up in SHS but we did, and that's it. We didn't want a genocide but we had it, and that's it, life goes on.
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on Apr 29, 2009 6:35:28 GMT -5
Could you explain in a few words how comes people got so mixed though they had not good relationship (to put it mildly) and had quite different purposes?
I know it of course, but that decision wasn't wise. I would even dare say that decision caused great instability and future Balkan and world wars
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Apr 29, 2009 6:47:19 GMT -5
Could you explain in a few words how comes people got so mixed though they had not good relationship (to put it mildly) and had quite different purposes? As much as people might think there weren't much inter faith problems. It's not like Izetbegovic's government invented the story how Bosnia has always been an example of tolerance. In wars obviously armies would clash but the fact Christians existed during all of the existence of the Ottoman empire in Bosnia must tell you something. They got mixed simply because...why shouldn't they. There has never been a ban on it. If you think people jumped on each others throats in Bosnia always than you are really wrong. Different points of view.
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on Apr 29, 2009 7:20:25 GMT -5
But AH took the region where up to 100% people were against it (that time). Very democratic indeed... What good could have come of it?
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Apr 29, 2009 7:29:00 GMT -5
But AH took the region where up to 100% people were against it (that time). Very democratic indeed... Would good could have come of it? One could argue Croats liked em' Anyways Serbs took 100% Bosniak regions in the last war, and you support that (I'm not judging you, it's your choice, I'm just saying how no one gives really a shit about morals when his side does something wrong). What can you do. History isn't simple.
|
|
|
Post by soko on Apr 29, 2009 9:37:58 GMT -5
the SFRJ was the best so far.. years 1945-85ish....
|
|
|
Post by tiprat on Apr 29, 2009 17:48:17 GMT -5
long ago mean the croat kingdom?
King Tomislavs Croatia etc?
witch battles such as "battle of the bosnian highlands" etc?
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on Apr 30, 2009 2:55:48 GMT -5
fazlinho,
If I am not mistaken Bosnian Serbs occupied about half of Bosnia before the last war (since they lived mostly in rural regions, where the density of population is usually lower than in cities, they occupied more than 1/3 - their part of Bosnia population). So if they have 1/2 of Bosnia now and they took Bosniak regions in the last war, it means that they ceded their own regions, or what else does it mean?
I remember someone from this forum suggested they if Bosnian Serbs have self-ruling they could diminish the territory of RS as a compromise.
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Apr 30, 2009 21:34:07 GMT -5
Muslims are mainly concentrated in metropolises. Muslims didn't control much of Bosnia. Maybe less than 30% before the way. Serbs controlled more than 50% and Croats controlled around 10%. And by control I mean land legally owned. In the early months of the war Serbs managed to gain control over 60% of Bosnia and Croats managed to gain control over plenty of Muslim control areas.
In any case, Serbs still legally control over 50% of Bosnia despite the "ethnic cleansing" they were subjected to.
|
|
MiG
Amicus
Republika
Posts: 4,793
|
Post by MiG on Apr 30, 2009 21:42:45 GMT -5
^ I assume you've got land ownership papers to prove that right?
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Apr 30, 2009 21:47:32 GMT -5
Look at any map of Bosnia before the war and it's ethnic population density.
|
|
|
Post by zgembo on Apr 30, 2009 23:50:16 GMT -5
Arguing about percentages is pretty selective and kind of misplaced.
The most telling stat is that, as a result of the war, there are 550,000 less Serbs in FBiH and 500,000 less Muslims in Republika Srpska. The ethnic cleansing committed by some Serb paramilitaries in eastern Bosnia was more brutal than what happened in FBiH... but the end result was pretty balanced.
|
|
|
Post by soko on May 1, 2009 7:09:11 GMT -5
The war result is more of the form of squeezing in the Bosniacs into 30% of BiH, whilst they were "living" as in making up a relative majority of the population in perhaps half the country..... before the war after the war .... it's no secrete that the RS leadership wanted, and were quite successful into destroying the "living space" of the Bosniacs, making it impossible for "them" to ever amount to something serious again, seen as Bosnia is de-facto divided into what nationalist political party controls what opcina, rather then the so called entities. The difference in the way ethnic cleansing was done was that the RS always did this at gunpoint, either killing or driving out the whole town, whilst the other sides killed perhaps one family or one person, and then let the rest "figure out what was best for them"..
|
|
|
Post by SKORIC on May 1, 2009 7:21:38 GMT -5
^ whoa. That map really does show the reality of the war. Look how green the middle of Bosnia is and look how multi cultural it was before the war. Damn islamo fascists.. luckily Serbs managed to prevent that from happening in the rest of Bosnia.
|
|
paja
Membrum
Posts: 193
|
Post by paja on May 1, 2009 7:50:08 GMT -5
Refugees maybe but not casualties.
|
|
|
Post by acosrbin on May 1, 2009 21:01:12 GMT -5
Before the Ottomons came in and forcably converted 100's of thousands Serbs to islam. In fact alot have seemed to forget this and now see turkey as their brothers. What a crazy world
|
|