Why is/was this region such a massive fucking shit show?

Salonica was THE kike city of its day, full of merchants, bankers and immense wealth.
If not for protectionism, it would've surpassed Constantinople.

>competitive with the west in the early 20th century
With the weaker western countries like Spain.

>"the west" is just the three strongest countries at any given time
>any country outside the top 3 is an absolute shithole hell on earth not worth looking at

Its like I am on /v/.

Sorry, hyperbole, at first thought Greece but then, ehh

Mostly this, especially the Turks

I don't think either of those. I'm from there. 5 more centuries of feudalism don't really get you wealth.

Doesn't get YOU wealth, gets plenty of wealth for the area in general.
Its how Germany was built.

Stalin
Post-Suleiman Ottoman corruption
Hodja
Ceausescu
Tito
Milosevici
Tudjman
Iliescu
Erdogan
Horthy

in the ottoman empire to get an education you must be either :

a. be a muslim and enter local madrasa
b. join the desvsirme system (need to convert also) and enter the ottoman imperial court

theres an exception but the reason but the reason why the literacy is so low is that the educated upper clas muslim population were a)gets massacred following the ottoman defeat in the balkan wars b)migrated to remaining ottoman territory in anatolia and thrace. so there you have it

>theres an exception but the reason but the reason why the literacy is so low is that the educated upper clas muslim population were a)gets massacred following the ottoman defeat in the balkan wars b)migrated to remaining ottoman territory in anatolia and thrace. so there you have it
Balkan apes are literally Haiti tier. Who knows how developed it could be if they didn't chimp out.

Shoo roach

Dragovich
Steiner
Kravchenko
ALL MUST DIE

Nah, the issue is actually that the Ottoman Empire used arabic, and the printing press sucks for arabic.
So no books were printed, and books remained expensive works of art, and commoners didn't own books. Why would you need to read if you don't own books?

nice strawman

400 years of Ottoman retardation, there is no other way to explain it.

The Poles were vassals to the Russians and Prussians for a long ass time, but they didn't turn out so bad. The Baltics who were even longer part of Russia, are among the richest countries in Europe. The Irish were under the English heel for an even longer time than the Balkans under the Ottomans, and they have religious tensions, but certainly one cannot say they are doing badly by themselves.

thats one of the reason , but theres more to it, some ottoman guy actually made a custom ottoman arabic font for the printing press and managed to publish the books, but this triggered the ottoman clergy which have been doing scribe works for centuries, these clergies then shut down the printing press tusing the jannisaries (it was one of those times were the jannisaries has stronger influence than the sultan)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Muteferrika#Printing_Press

Zhivkov

I wonder if this post is ironic or if there are people this retarded on this board

No and yes.

What did I say that was retarded?

You have absolute evidence over here from other anons , here and here ,as testaments to Ottoman retardation. High illiteracy, no printing press, no freedom to congregate, high taxation sucking off your blood, and being constantly under threat from the blood tax and persecution cause cultures to regress.

>29 posts
>nobody bothers to refer to their statistically low IQ
hmmmmm

>Regions that don't incorporate standardized testing in their curricula tend to do poorly on standardized tests
Not to mention that IQ is literally a scam, it measures a small number of traits associated with intelligence, not how smart or educated or rational you are.

>t. Brainlet

>be Slovenian
>one of the safest countries in Europe
>associated with the rest of the Balkans which is statistically still one of the safest areas in the world.
I don't even mind it desu, it just feels weird when most of the westerners think the Balkan are some monolithic group of people and apply broad generalization that fail to apply across a single Balkan country let alone the entire Balkan peninsula.

>theres an exception but the reason but the reason why the literacy is so low is that the educated upper clas muslim population were a)gets massacred following the ottoman defeat in the balkan wars b)migrated to remaining ottoman territory in anatolia and thrace. so there you have it
That's just a bunch of bullshit, the educational system in the Ottoman empire was dog shit (see number of schools in Bosnia) and the fact the muslims had lower literacy levels than peasants across the border in the A-H empire should tell you as much.

He said shit show not shithole, I think he means why is it so divided culturally and centre of conflict

The turks actually kind of improved the region for some time. What really fucked it over was slavic immigration. Byzantine balkan was the most developed part of Europe. Slavs immigrated, allied with turks to fuck byzanz over, and then they rightfully got boypuccied themselves by turks.

What the fuck are you talking about. Your time scale is way off.
Slavs came into the Balkans when ERE was in decline, and the ones that beat them were the Bulgarians, not Slavs.
Also the Turks (Seljuk or Ottoman) never had allies in Europe during their wars with ERE. If anything, ERE had European allies against them, and against the Arabs.

>The turks actually kind of improved the region for some time.
Great bed time story.

>Slavs immigrated, allied with turks
Yep, in the 6th century, right?

>Byzantine balkan was the most developed part of Europe
Is that why it was depopulated?

>Stalin
He did the opposite

Their IQ is low, because of poverty. Less developed country = less IQ

>implying it was not the second bulgarian empire that fucked Byzanz over

The ottomans build infrastructure though.
Its not their fault that the balkan monkeys chimped out and started genociding everyone and everything.

Meant built*

>Horthy
nothing wrong

the ottomanz dindu nuffin

What infrastructure?The occasional bridge that was replaced, that road here and there that was repaired? Show me some extensive projects the Ottomans conducted in the Balkans. If they built so much infrastructure why are the places that spent the most time in the Austro-Hungarian empire the most devoid of infrastructure?

I can show you all the cities, towns and villages they burnt down, destroyed and had the population sold in slavery trough literally hundreds of years of warfare.

>that spent the most time in the Austro-Hungarian empire the most devoid of infrastructure?
Ottoman empire*

That was for the last ~100 years of its rule over the balkans, when the whole world lost touch to western europe. You could say the same about the Ming dynasty.

The first 400 though were not exactly bad for the Balkans. They argueably developed better, than if they would have stayed independent.

>Ming dynasty.
meant Qing dynasty.

>The first 400 though were not exactly bad for the Balkans.
That's what literally destroyed the Balkans, instead of political stability we had hundred years of constant low-intensity conflict marked by constant looting and raiding which lead to major population shifts, which in turn led to the clusterfuck we have today, and entire regions becoming depopulated/losing their economic centers.

>They argueably developed better, than if they would have stayed independent
Go ahead, argue that as I honestly can't see as to how you can. The ares most developed were those that were not directly under the Ottoman empire, be it the mercantile republics on the coast or the land that was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, rather than areas that were part of the Ottoman empire.

The whole Yugoslavia thing was a mistake in hindsight. After WW1 croats and slovenes managed to play to King of Serbia's ego sufficiently enough to go for the whole panslavism thing and free them from the Austro-Hungrian yoke, which only served as a starting point for festering nationalism decades onwards. Had Serbia just annexed the regions where Serbs were a majority back then, in what is today called Croatia and Bosnia the whole place would be a beacon of stability. Such a shame.

>>So there's no real experience with governing, no long-running institutions, no financial windfalls due to colonization or resource extraction, centuries of abuse or neglect causing what was once one of Europe's wealthiest/most developed regions to stagnate. All that, plus ethno-religious strife caused by conversions to Islam and unsettled borders between nations.

this mostly

Turkey and Russia, mostly.

>After WW1 croats and slovenes managed to play to King of Serbia's ego sufficiently enough to go for the whole panslavism thing and free them from the Austro-Hungrian yoke
There was no Austro-Hungary anymore so it was fairly hard for Serbs to "free" anyone from the Austro-Hungarian "yoke". The Austro-Hungarians transfered all power the the Slovene and Croatian national councils (along with the entire A-H navy). Which formed the state, internationally unrecognized, of Slovenes Croats and Serbs that proceeded to unify with the Kingdom of Serbia to form the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later renamed to Yugoslavia) trough a vote.

>Had Serbia just annexed the regions where Serbs were a majority back then, in what is today called Croatia and Bosnia the whole place would be a beacon of stability. Such a shame.
Hardly, annexing ares of Bosnia and Croatia would lead to stability how exactly? The are was a patchwork of ethnic groups and Serbs would have to integrate millions of non-Serbs which would lead to exactly the same problems. Not even considering world war 2 that tore down the Kingdom of Yugoslavia anyway.

wut

>The first 400 though were not exactly bad for the Balkans
Local elites were destroyed, whole towns were destroyed or their population fled, elite education for Christians was eliminated, trade routes to the North/West were interrupted.

Great improvements, indeed.

Serbs wanted all of the Serbian population that was scattered around the Balkans in one unified country. What I am saying is that, with the benefit of hindsight, the best thing was to leave Slovene and Croat national counsels to fend for themselves and just incorporate the parts where Serbs were majority into Serbia. What millions of non-Serbs are you talking about?

>Serbs wanted all of the Serbian population that was scattered around the Balkans
Serbs were never scattered around the Balkans, their population is localized in a fairly small area.

Which area?

Modern Serbia+Montenegro+Kosovo?

> What millions of non-Serbs are you talking about?
If you want to include all Serbian populations that are scattered around the Balkans in one unified country then you will have to include millions of non-serbs as well as the ethnic borders are not clear cut. If you want to include Bosnia as part of Serbia, then half of the population included will be non-Serb. The same thing would happen in Croatia, in places like Dalmatia and Slavonia, and even places like Macedonia, which all had significant, but minority, Serb populations. The only way around this is for Bangladesh tier borders with enclaves and exclaves everywhere.

You're just pushing the problem down the line in the hopes of it not resurfacing.

Yes, and a good chunk of Slavonia in present day Croatia and a good chunk of Bosnia. WW2 was hell for Serbs in both regions, right after WW1 there were far more Serbs living there than after WW2.

>If you want to include all Serbian populations that are scattered around the Balkans in one unified country then you will have to include millions of non-serbs as well as the ethnic borders are not clear cut.

I am speaking of the areas where ethnic borders were more or less clear cut. I am not suggesting all of Bosnia, or even all of Slavonia.

Yugoslavia was godfathered by the Western powers who wanted a relatively big pro-Entente country to hold the Balkans for them. Some French post war designs had an even more ridiculous Yugoslavia imagined.

It's easy to say that it was a mistake in hindsight, but in that time in 1918 it was something that *everyone* wanted, from Belgrade to Zagreb to Ljubljana to Paris to London, because they all knew it would solve a shit ton of problems if they could get it to work, and there was little reason to think that they couldn't.

>I am speaking of the areas where ethnic borders were more or less clear cut. I am not suggesting all of Bosnia, or even all of Slavonia.
Which means you're leaving a lot of Serbs outside of your Serbian state despite technically nothing standing in your way from taking them.

Yugoslavia was a compromise from the start and no single party was completely happy with it. You also ignore the historical reasons for it, it wasn't an idea that surfaced in 1918, it was an idea a hundred years old by now that failed due to a number of reasons. I mean, the reason Serbo-Croatian existed was because in the 19th century they reached a literary agreement regarding the language and its standard variety, not something that sprouted as an after thought to Yugoslavia. The implementation of Yugoslavia was the problem, not the idea of Yugoslavia itself.

at the end of 17th century ottoman villager is 3 times wealthier than average european pleb. ottoman empire used to be pretty rich since they were controlling all major trade routes. age of discovery changed that.

>at the end of 17th century ottoman villager is 3 times wealthier than average european pleb
That's a bullshit calculation.

low IQ slavs

>places like Macedonia, which all had significant, but minority, Serb populations
There were 300 Serbs in Macedonia around 1850.

I sincerely doubt those numbers. Just random migrations would account for far more.

Why did the Kninska Krajina have such a low literacy rate, but the rest of the Military Frontier didn't?

i didnt calculate myself. believe what you want to believe.

Educated people never found their way there because it's too hard to pronounce.

Too many wogs in one area

>kike city
funny thing is Solonica had a very large jewish population during Ottoman rule

He is just doing GDP per capita.
The wealth of the whole state, if it were divided equally.
Obviously it wasn't divided equally.

>400 years of Ottoman retardation
>not 45 years of communism

Knin is one of the easier ones.
Try Drškovci or Debrc.
Both of those are random villages though, bigger cities don't have many syllabic consonants.

I'm Romanian, I have no problem. Germs on the other hand...

The Baltics are rich because we were under German, not Russian rule.
Russians only held de jure power. De facto power was in the hand of the Baltic German elite until the late 19th century, when russification began and serfdom ended.
Lithuania is another deal though. They were under direct Russian rule during the 19th century.

Living in a stable empire for 500 years is quite literally the exact opposite of political instability. Your "low-intensity conflict" was lower than in any other jurisdiction at the time.

Well, name a single bridge or any other even slightly remarkable piece of infrastructure that was build by bulgarians, serbs, croatians, albanians or any other balkan people.

The ottoman period was literally a golden age for orthodox christianity in the Balkans. You should check out when most of the famous monasteries were build, or when the famous icons got made. Hint: almost all of them were under ottoman rule.

>why is this region such a massive fucking shit show
Turkish incompetence

I'll argue that all those monasteries and churches would have been built either way and the Ottomans killed the possibility of an Eastern Renaissance. Georgia, Armenia, Bulgaria, Serbia and the Romanian principalities were all on that path when the Ottomans invaded

Greece is wealthier than any other eastern european country, Bulgaria, Romania and the former yugoslav countries are not significantly poorer, than most eastern european countries. Yugoslavia used to be the second most developed communist country after eastern germany.

Turkish corruption in the 16th-17the centuries and no industrialization in the 18th and 19th. Suleiman's empire was the most stable and powerful since the Roman Empire in the Medditeranean area at that time. Not 100 years later it went down due to its convoluted politica.

The only reason most of the Ex-Yugoslav countries are as developed as they are is thanks to communism.

Ottomans basically raped them with islamic rule

Ottomans are also very incompetent rulers outside themselves
Kind of like Spain with its territories

Power vacuum
Turks were doing the right thing

If Serbia (by Serbia I mean France who actually won the war for them) annexed Bosnia and parts of Croatia Croats ( with their bosniak muslim loverboys ) would go even more batshit in ww2 and kill half of serb population, and probably assassinatr king alexander even sooner then they did this way.

Problem with Yugoslavia (reffering to 90s war here) was that, while Croatia playing for both sides (Ustashas for nazis, Tito for commie yugoslavia) they ended up as victors. And non countries like FYROM , Bosnia and Slovenia became a republic, and even Kosovo got autonomy. Meanwhile Serbia, the only ""victor"" (thanks papa france) of ww1 got dismantled during Tito, since they were the only yugo republic that wasnt freed by their own population ( partisans ) but by red army/bulgarians + the partisans.

That is what led to yugo wars, serbs bring butthurt that they became irrelevant adter ww2 and croatian muh freedoms nonsense.

Yugoslavia ( Slovenian and Croatian republics) were significantly richer the Czechoslovakia, Baltics and Poland during the cold war. So your shit is staled

All these people blaming Ottomans are partly right, but the region has been a shit show since long before kebab arrived. It's very mountainous with crappy soil and crappy climate. It served as effective "crossroads of culture" in prehistory because of its location relative to Europe, the steppes, and Anatolia, but this same fact has meant that ever since states were organized in these locations it was going to be a staging point for various wars between them. Combined with the innate natural poverty of the land it's doomed to historical irrelevance. It's not conditions conducive to the formation of a strong native state. The only thing it was good for in antiquity was producing naturalizable barbarians to serve as late Roman warrior elite. Once Slavs come to live there lol, good luck with even that, they are just barbarians who can't even serve as elite to themselves. And then Turks come to shit everything up with their retarded blend of dgaf and Persianized failstate. Then the whole place gets rapidly decolonized as the Turks collapse, and starts to behave like postcolonial governments do, to wit a bunch of idiot fucking apes.

Never post again

I'd add serfdom to that list, it's mind-boggling how much geo-political luck Western Europe had,i swear it's like they got the perfect mix of buffer states/oceans but still enough contact with the rest of the world.
You'd have to be retarded not to develop a prime civilization in W.Europe.
Even their winters are jokes ffs.

>Manorialism underwent a somewhat different evolution in central and eastern Europe. These areas had witnessed the decline of manorialism in the 12th and 13th centuries as vast areas of forest and wasteland were colonized by free German and Slavonic peasants. But the numerous wars fought between the Russians, Poles, Prussians, Lithuanians, and others in the 15th and 16th centuries reproduced the political instability and social insecurities that had led to peasant enserfment in western Europe centuries earlier. In addition, western Europe’s growing demand for grain from the Baltic area gave nobles and other landlords there an additional incentive to enserf their peasants, since that was the best way to ensure labour services for grain-growing demesnes. So by the 16th century manorialism had been re-created on a large scale in eastern Europe, particularly in eastern Germany, Poland, and Russia. These reactionary manorial developments were not reversed in eastern Europe until the 19th century in most cases.

they have criminal genes

mad, comrade?

WRONG.
Balkans was and will be a shithole.

uhh no, if it wasn't for communism, that region would've remained in shit-tier feudalism. Communism and the authoritarianism that came with it is the only reason Yugoslavia lasted as long as it did too.

wrong

balkan states were modern european industrialized democracies

>everyone ITT talking about Turks and communism
The Balkans was a shithole (apart from Greece) since before Rome existed. I blame the geography.

The Balkans were never a shithole, it's a wonderful place.

It was never United to be homogenous, like England or France
Spain has fuck ups becuse until 1701 argon and castille were still quite separate