Why do the balkanites hate eachother?

I'm from Slovenia and I know several Serbians and Croatians. We regularly smoke weed together and hang out. I also have Dalmatian friends who are older and were in the war. They tell me they have nothing against Serbians and Bosnians coming there to vacation but that they will never go to Serbia.

I am from Bosnia and i hate everyone equally, not just Balkam people, Asians Europeans Africans. You name it i hate it

thats actually correct, wasnt the main reason why Bulgaria didnt join Yugoslavia because Goergi Dimitrov was Stalin's bitch and Stalin didnt wasnt them in?
It actually coudl've been interesting if they were in Yugoslavia, Serbia would've had a power-counter and the coutnry probably would've been alive today

>but thats retarded, considering pretty much everyone on the balkans is genetically the same and culturally really fucking close

Well thats the whole point, its because they are close that it was easy for the nations to lay claim on adjacent regions, you could always find a reason. But you can't deny that they are still different nations regardless, faith plays a huge part, a Serb, Croat and Bosnian may be basically the same people but their faiths make their culture very very different in some aspects

>would've been alive today
most likely not, Bulgaria in 20th century was military and economically as strong if not stronger than Yugoslavia all together so they probably could've just take Serbia's leader roll even sooner and call for civil war and unrests in the western parts

Balkans were never meant to live together

>Bulgaria in 20th century was military and economically as strong if not stronger than Yugoslavia
You fucking wut m8?

>Serbia held power in communist Yugoslavia

>most likely not, Bulgaria in 20th century was military and economically as strong if not stronger than Yugoslavia all together
Hi there, you must be a special sort of handicapped.

>Serbia held power in communist Yugoslavia
prove me wrong
>Hi there, you must be a special sort of handicapped.
mind explaining why?

>prove me wrong
First of all, tard, you made a retarded claim without proof, but sure

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_Yugoslav_Constitution
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Congress_of_the_League_of_Communists_of_Yugoslavia

>mind explaining why?
Because you claimed Bulgaria with less than half the population of Yugoslavia, a smaller economy, smaller army and being a satellite state of the USSR was economically and militarily stronger than Yugoslavia.

Any other questions?

wasnt yugoslavia itself another soviet satellite?

>this nigger
inb4 people falling for the bait

No, unless you think Soviet satellite states were supplied with Sabre jets

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito–Stalin_Split

but they were commies right?

It all stems with Serbians. Serbians both wanted a deeper and more direct relationship with Russians, and also wanted to push a pan-Slavic/Serbian "unity" with Croats, Slovenes, Bosniaks, but wanted to suppress Muslims, and privileged Serbians over their fellow Slavs. For example even among Christian Slavs, there wasn't a whole lot of unity with Croats being Catholics and most others being Orthodox.

and afaik, they had the second stongest army on the balkans after Greece, but thats pretty much because they were a Cold War country that had to be ready for eventual strike/defence against western sphere of influence Greece and Turkey

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_Yugoslav_Constitution

You are deluded if you think that serbia wasnt the de facto leader of Yugoslavia, especially after Tito was gone

>inb4 calling me a butthrut croat/slovene/whatever.
Im not even a balkanfag,

In my opinion Bulgaria has the clam over the balkans...they were holding them up to northen Romania for hundreds of years before the ottomans came

Serbia was literally castrated between 1974 and 1989

>Croats, Slovenes, Bosniaks, but wanted to suppress Muslims
Bosniaks ARE muslims. Bosnians =/= Bosniaks. Bosnians are the inhabitants of Bosnia, Bosniaks are muslim inhabitants of Bosnia, they wern't known or called as such then though.

>For example even among Christian Slavs, there wasn't a whole lot of unity with Croats being Catholics and most others being Orthodox.
Most others being...Macedonians, that's it.

Your shit thus hardly makes sense, stop it.

>You are deluded if you think that serbia wasnt the de facto leader of Yugoslavia, especially after Tito was gone
Read the 1974 constitution that I gave you a link to. Maybe you should actually take a quick peek as to what happened when Serbians actually did gain control, that would be the second link. Pro tip; the country dissolved followed by civil war.

But, yeah, the Serbs controlled the country, that's why Vojvodina and Kosovo (of all places) were given autonomy and veto power in the Serbian parliament.

Also Yugoslavia had by far the largest army in the Balkans. By far. What is your pic supposed to be arguing? That Bulgaria had 20 dollars higher GDP per capita in 1989? Did you ever take in account that Bulgaria only had 8 million people and Yugoslavia had 23 million?

They had the 4th strongest army in Europe, so unless Geeks are number 3 than you do the math

no one has claim over shit, greeks gold it before that, ottomans before that, etc

might equals right, whoever manages to gold land, is the one who should own it

>Christian
>Orthodox
>Sunni
thats all you need to know

you mean catholic
orthodox is also christian you know

No it isn't

WE WUZ THRACIANZ N SHEEEEIIIIITTTTTT

Illyrian and Thracian dogs.

croatian autism strikes again

Kek, am I "el esloveno"

Croatians and Slovenians are from Thule and Serbians and Macedonians from Atlantis, tensions got a bit high

>most of them are slavs
Being part of the same ethno-linguistic group has barely any importance. Poles and Russians are also Slavs.

>have releated language
Same thing. Croats, Bosnians and Serbs might speak the same language but they belong to three different ethnicities.

>common history
What common history? Living in Yugoslavia for a few decades?

>common allies and enemies alike
Hardly.

Unrelated to the question, Prekmurje was definitely not populated by so many Hungarians that it would have to be marked like that.

Read "The Misery of the small eastern European states" by Istvan Bibo you euroniggers.

make me, loser

same geographical localisation, they all existed for centuries, and they had the same enemies like the ottos.

You dont see spain and portugal hating eachother

>Unrelated to the question, Prekmurje was definitely not populated by so many Hungarians that it would have to be marked like that.
That's far from the only thing wrong with that map, basically entire Bosnia should be striped

because they werent forced to live in the same country

and again, the religion

>common allies and enemies alike
Everyone hated Hungary, thats about it.

Living next to each other definitely doesn't help precisely because of historical circumstances that occured throughout the centuries.
The first major element of future hostilities was the religious split - first between the Catholics, the Orthodox and the Bogomilist. Then the Turkish invasion of the Balkans happened and slowly, more and more of the South Slavs came under Ottoman rule. The Bogomilists that had been kicked down by their neighbours because of their religious views happily accepted Islam as this gave them a much more privileged position. The invasion also led to another massive change - a miss migration of Serbs to the west and to the north. That's when large parts of modern Croatia and Bosnia became ethnically mixed on a major scale, which would fuel hostilities in the future.

Generally speaking, the main overlords in the region were the Austrian Empire and the Ottoman Empire; the former ruling over the Catholic Slovenes and Croats (as well as those Serbian refugees) and later taking over Bosnia; the Ottoman empire ruled over Bosnia and Serbia but slowly had to give the land away as its power diminished.
With the rise of nationalism in the 19th century also came the idea of Slavic unity. In the Austrian Empire, the Croats were the dominant group as they were the most numerous and had a special position inside Hungary. It must be noted, though, that most pan-Slavists inside the Austrian Empire envisioned the South Slavic polity as an autonomous kingdom under Habsburg rule. The other player in this was Serbia which was independent at the time.

The main point of contention at the beginning of the 20th century became Bosnia; it was annexed by Austria-Hungary and the Serbs (mainly Serbs) in Bosnia would have none of it. In the events paralleling those 80 years later, revolutionaries in Bosnia, supported by Serbia, assassinated the Austrian heir, sparking the first world war.

(1/2)

That whole Bogomil thing is a meme and not grounded in any historical facts whatsoever. Heresy was pretty popular with the Serb Vukan, telling that Ban Kulin is a heretic because he had personal interest in depicting him as a heretic. The same thing is with the Hungarians constantly nagging about muh heresy in Bosnia so they can get the green light from the Pope to move down and subdue the Bosnians (some of them might be nominally Hungarian vassals but they don't give a fuck).

Bosnia is shithole today, it was even more so in the middle ages. The Christian clergy that existed there was uneducated and didn't even speak latin, they couldn't tell if someone is a good christian. The pope actually sent a legate in 1204., and he goes on to teach them what Christianity really is about while several of the Bans of Bosnia tell the pope: "What heretics around us? We thought these guys are good christians".

The biggest meme you spewed is that the "bogomils" (not a single medieval Bosnian source tells that the members of the Bosnian church are bogomils, they refer to themselves as Krstjani (Christians)). are somehow connected to Islam and more easily accepted it. These are myths and nothing but it. We can see the islamization of Bosnia through Ottoman tax records, nothing out of order, just people switching religion out of theological reasons and to have a better position in the new state. I have a facsimile of the Hvalov zbornik (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hval's_Codex) it was literally copied by a so called heretic, there is nothing in to point out any theological differences between the Bosnian church and western Catholicism. Some Bosnian muslims today foster the meme that they were somehow not Orthodox, not Catholic before the Ottoman invasion, which could be right since the Bosnian church was in some cases independent, but that independence was regional and mostly due to illiteracy, not due to some theological dualist bullshit larping.

The bloody war led to the deaths of something like 60% of Serbia's male population, but it also put Serbia in a powerful position as one of the winners of the war. In the chaos of the early months of the post-war period, the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was declared in the territories previously ruled by Austria-Hungary, but the confederacy was not recognised by any other country and it was under threat from the north and the west so (under quite a bit of opposition from the population) it very soon joined together with Serbia into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.
Although the kingdom was Serb-dominated (and the Serbian political circles had different ideas from Alexander I when it came to the balance between the ethnicities), Slovenes and Croats had political representation and could pursue cultural development, there was nevertheless tension. For Slovenes, there was the matter of Carinthia, which the authorities in Belgrade had no interest in saving (and the thugish conduct of the Serbian army that was sent to Carinthia helped to pursue the local population to vote for Austria instead) and for Croats, it was due to the loss of the previously dominant position among the Soth Slavs in Austria-Hungary. The Slovene and Croatian politicians formed a block (along with Bosnian politicians), although political groupings changed throughout the years).
Although Alexander tried to keep the situation between the ethnicities peaceful, tensions rose until the parliament shooting, at which point he assumed control, establishing a dictatorship. This led the Croatian political powers to demand more power but not even the formation of the Croatian banovina helped. The most radical nationalist elements seeked support in Italy. As the Axis powers invaded Yugoslavia, the Ustashe assumed control in the newly-founded Independent State of Croatia, pursuing genocide policies against the Serbs.

(2/3)

On the other hand, Serbian nationalists tried to pursue their own interests in WW2 as well. The Chetniks (that were in a far less favourable position and changed camps many times during the war) mostly engaged in genocide against the muslim population.
The war left an impact on the whole population of Yugoslavia, with the biggest animosity being between the Serbs and Croats (and Bosnians), while in Slovenia, the conflict was very much a civil war. As Yugoslavia's economy started collapsing after Tito's death, politicians saw this opportunity and brought back the WW2-era hostilities (which was not that hard), once again leading to genocide.

(3/3)

I will admit that I am not that well versed on the Bosnian church but is was definitely an isolated entity and its disorganisation helped in converting the Bosnians to Islam. Of course, economic and political reasons also played an important role in this.

In a sense, but not the Bosnian church per se, but more the lack of strong western and/or eastern church organization in Bosnia.

Croatia and Serbia were always separate states, so neither one wants to be dominated by the other

sort of like Denmark vs Sweden, if they were to unite, where would the capital be? Stockholm or Copenhagen?

Stockholm, easily

copenhagen obviously, better location, better town

The only man who could have prevented the death of Yugoslavia

And yet he didn't.
It could've lived on longer if the reformist wing wasn't purged throughout the 60s and 70s and the confederacy was established.