Borders of Europe

Would this really be worse? Is there any actual examples of people in Europe who don't genetically cluster most closely with those who speak the same language as them?

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's pretty similar to the borders that already exist, there are just a few autistic examples of countries that aren't united by language and they're mostly on the brink of collapse (for example Belgium).
    Then there are a bunch of mongoloid regional separatist movements within language groups on a bunch of spurious, schizophrenic grounds (Scotland).

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Hey cassandra

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Who's Cassandra? I knew a Belgian girl named Cassandra on Discord a while back, you're not talking about here, are you?

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Germany looks like a mouth devouring Czechia. Fitting.

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Just unite all Serbo-Croatians in one state bro! What can possibly go wrong?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      It worked fine for much of history. The Balkans have always been a tribalistic, wartorn shithole and if you think the present situation is better and will work longterm you're deluded.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      They've been united under one state for most of their existence though. It's just been under foreign empires such as Ottomans, Austria-Hungary and others.
      Yugoslavia would have worked fine. Western powers decided to destroy it because it was aligned with Russia.
      Yugoslavians are all genetically closest to one another and speak the same South Slavic language.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >They've been united under one state for most of their existence though
        Wut? Like when? In the High Middle Ages Serbs had their own state, while Croatians were in a personal union with Hungary, and coastal areas were mostly under the Republic of Venice. Then Ottomans swallowed Serbia, while most Croats lived under Austrian rule. Then Serbia became independent again, while Croats still lived in Austria-Hungary until the creation in Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was the first time all of them were truly united in a single state.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Wut? Like when?
          For almost as long as South Slavs have existed they have been under foreign domination. First was the Byzantine Empire. Then was the Ottoman Empire. Then came Austria-Hungary.

          >In the High Middle Ages Serbs had their own state
          Fleeting, temporal states that were always rapidly subsumed back into larger empires of the region.

          >Yugoslavia was the first time all of them were truly united in a single state.
          No it wasn't.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >First was the Byzantine Empire
            Croatians never lived under Byzantine rule. They conquered the land from the Avars, then set up their own duchy.

            >they have been under foreign domination
            Yeah, but not under the same foreign powers

            >always rapidly subsumed back into larger empires of the region
            Again, they were subsumed into different empires, so they weren't in the same state together. In the 12th century Croatia got into a union with Hungary (later Austira-Hungary), where they remained until the collapse of the Habsburg rule in the 20th century. Before that they didn't live in the same state as the Serbs either, they had their own kingdom in the 10-12th cc. The majority of Croats and Serbs lived under separate powers literally for a thousand years.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Croatians never lived under Byzantine rule.
              Yes they did.

              >Yeah, but not under the same foreign powers
              For the majority of time, yes it was.

              >Again, they were subsumed into different empires
              You endlessly repeating an easily debunked lie isn't going to make it anymore more true.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Yes they did.
                When exactly? Could you name the years? I just don't see how the claim that Serbs and Croatians lived under one state "for most of their existence" is true, given that Croatia was under Hungary/Austria-Hungary for almost literally a millenium, whil Serbia wasn't.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                *while Serbia wasn't.

              • 3 months ago
                Svetovid

                Where are you from?

                [...]
                [...]
                For a board dedicated to "history and humanities", its visitors are hilariously historically illiterate. The ERE had maintained close relations with the Bulgarian, Serbian, and Croatian states, but had never had the power to add their territories to that of the ERE, barring the rule of Basil II, the first and last post-Migration Era Roman Emperor to restore the Danubian border, but even that was temporary. During the Middle Ages, the South Slavic states were primarily sovereign, independent states, and sired the first imperial Slavic states, Bulgaria and Serbia. The only state that fits this narrative is Slovenia, even Croatia was independent and sovereign for the better part of its Early Medieval history, and would enter a personal Union with Hungary after the Battle of Gvozd Mountain. It goes without saying that Zeta, and its successor state, Montenegro, were never conquered by the Ottomans, and continued to exist as a sovereign state.

                Furthermore, Southeastern Europe has repeatedly housed imperial states as early as the Macedonian Empire, and in the 14th century alone, housed three imperial states, Serbia, Bulgaria, and the ERE, or four, if you consider the expansion of the Ottoman Empire. The premise that the peninsula is a "tribal, wartorn shithole" makes sense only if one ignores 99% of history, and focuses on the Yugoslav Wars, which ironically, were instigated by foreign, predatory powers taking advantage of Yugoslavia's temporary, but fatal, internal instability in the 1990s. Modern ethnic "rivalries" are entirely the product of late Ottoman-era ethnic policies and post-liberation-era Western designation of borders that were not compatible with the ethnic configuration of the peninsula. The only period in history where South Slavs lived under foreign domination is post-Yugoslav Wars modernity.

                More reading of history, less reading of Wikipedia.

                To add further detail, even during Basil's (re)conquest, the state of Duklja, the medieval progenitor-state of Zeta, and later, Montenegro, remained independent, and its ruling dynasty sired the Serbian ruling dynasty of the Nemanjici.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire
          >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire
          >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary

          • 3 months ago
            Svetovid

            >Wut? Like when?
            For almost as long as South Slavs have existed they have been under foreign domination. First was the Byzantine Empire. Then was the Ottoman Empire. Then came Austria-Hungary.

            >In the High Middle Ages Serbs had their own state
            Fleeting, temporal states that were always rapidly subsumed back into larger empires of the region.

            >Yugoslavia was the first time all of them were truly united in a single state.
            No it wasn't.

            They've been united under one state for most of their existence though. It's just been under foreign empires such as Ottomans, Austria-Hungary and others.
            Yugoslavia would have worked fine. Western powers decided to destroy it because it was aligned with Russia.
            Yugoslavians are all genetically closest to one another and speak the same South Slavic language.

            For a board dedicated to "history and humanities", its visitors are hilariously historically illiterate. The ERE had maintained close relations with the Bulgarian, Serbian, and Croatian states, but had never had the power to add their territories to that of the ERE, barring the rule of Basil II, the first and last post-Migration Era Roman Emperor to restore the Danubian border, but even that was temporary. During the Middle Ages, the South Slavic states were primarily sovereign, independent states, and sired the first imperial Slavic states, Bulgaria and Serbia. The only state that fits this narrative is Slovenia, even Croatia was independent and sovereign for the better part of its Early Medieval history, and would enter a personal Union with Hungary after the Battle of Gvozd Mountain. It goes without saying that Zeta, and its successor state, Montenegro, were never conquered by the Ottomans, and continued to exist as a sovereign state.

            Furthermore, Southeastern Europe has repeatedly housed imperial states as early as the Macedonian Empire, and in the 14th century alone, housed three imperial states, Serbia, Bulgaria, and the ERE, or four, if you consider the expansion of the Ottoman Empire. The premise that the peninsula is a "tribal, wartorn shithole" makes sense only if one ignores 99% of history, and focuses on the Yugoslav Wars, which ironically, were instigated by foreign, predatory powers taking advantage of Yugoslavia's temporary, but fatal, internal instability in the 1990s. Modern ethnic "rivalries" are entirely the product of late Ottoman-era ethnic policies and post-liberation-era Western designation of borders that were not compatible with the ethnic configuration of the peninsula. The only period in history where South Slavs lived under foreign domination is post-Yugoslav Wars modernity.

            More reading of history, less reading of Wikipedia.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      And for the record. Those wars occurred due to the collapse of Yugoslavia. As it internally melted due to a bunch of retarded, nonsensical tribal divides based entirely on religion.
      >Croatians are Roman Catholic South Slavs
      >Bosnians are Muslim South Slavs
      >Serbians are Orthodox South Slavs

      Look at the ethnic identification percentages in former Yugoslavian countries and now compare it to their religious affiliation percentages.
      It's 1:1.

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I look forward to the restoration of Greater Croatia under the Ustasha regime's descendents. Death to all Serbs!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *