Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / News  % width 66

RUSSIA IS TO POLAND WHAT TURKEY IS TO SOUTH SLAVS


Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446  
16 Aug 2009 /  #1
Slavic soldiarity does not strike a respondent chord in Poland, because Russia has traditonally been Poland's biggest foe. It swallowed up the largest chunk fo Poland in the partitions, annexed the eastern half of the country in collusion with Hitler in 1939, and then held a truncated, 20% smaller Poland in semi-subjugation for 45 years ending in 1989. 19th-century notions of panslavism usually implied uniting all the Slavs under the sceptre of the Russian tsars. I beleive the Polish emotional reaction to Russia can be compared to what Bulgars and Serbs historically feel towards Turks and other Moslems. Or ask a Slovak what he thinks of Hungarians!
aphrodisiac 11 | 2,442  
16 Aug 2009 /  #2
19th-century notions of panslavism usually implied uniting all the Slavs under the sceptre of the Russian tsars.

I think it is time to burry this idea and concentrate on reality in Poland.
OP Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446  
16 Aug 2009 /  #3
This is PF's polticis and HISTORY category, innit?
aphrodisiac 11 | 2,442  
16 Aug 2009 /  #4
yes and I have expressed my opinion. Please carry on.
Ironside 50 | 11,257  
16 Aug 2009 /  #5
Pan-Slavic enterprises were only a tool in political arsenal of Russia.
Sure some nations like Serbia or Bulgaria were buying it - but only because they needed help against Ottomans Turks!
Poland's system were less concerned about national or ethnic issues.
The nobility thats what counted - either you were noble and citizen or you as well maybe foreign:)
Crow 148 | 9,393  
17 Aug 2009 /  #6
Ironside

did you ever heard for Zawisha Czarny?

Do you know that he died for freedom of Serbians? that Serbs in Zawisha`s honour even today taking care of place where he was killed and mutilated by Turks? that there is monument to Zawisha Czarny in Serbia?

and so you talk about Serbs > `some nations like Serbia or Bulgaria were buying it`

It is modern day Poland that is in alliance with Germans and Turks, not the Serbia. Obviously, Serbians aren`t that modern.
Ironside 50 | 11,257  
17 Aug 2009 /  #7
did you ever heard for Zawisha Czarny?

Sure!:) So what?

It is modern day Poland that is in alliance with Germans and Turks, not the Serbia. Obviously, Serbians aren`t that modern.

Poland is fokked and Serbia for alliance with Russia - good luck!
Crow 148 | 9,393  
17 Aug 2009 /  #8
Serbia for alliance with Russia - good luck!

Pane dobri brate šta ti je?

Serbia isn`t in alliance with Russia. When was realy hard because of NATO-Islamists-Israel-EU pressure Serbs wanted (let`s say some 10 years ago) to join in Russian-Byelorussian union but Russia was affraid. maybe Poland offering alliance to Serbia?

i didn`t notice Polish offer for alliance with Serbia. Currently, Poland is obliged to USA, EU and Islamic league.

but, Poles and Serbs would found way to cooperate i`m sure ;)

Goran Bregovic & Krzysztof Krawczyk - Moj Przyjacielu



Poland is fokked

sure. That`s what i want to tell you

Slavs are on menu
Ironside 50 | 11,257  
17 Aug 2009 /  #9
Slavs are on menu

World is on the menu but what do you want from Poland - go ask for it Russia there in better position to help you!
Sasha 2 | 1,083  
17 Aug 2009 /  #10
what's the purpose of the thread? to show outstanding similarity between Russia-Poland, Turks-Serbs? Then it's not the best example to be set...
Crow 148 | 9,393  
17 Aug 2009 /  #11
Russia-Poland, Turks-Serbs

he, he

no, no ;)

in this comparision Russia is set togather with Turkey and Poland with south Slavs (Serbs among them). Oppresores on one side, victims on another

go ask for it Russia there in better position to help you!

see, see... you sending Serbs to Russia to ask for help. Helping to Serbians, Russia in fact work for Poland, saving Poland`s future.

How that?

Without Serbs, there is no Slavic south on which Poland could count if ever again tries to become serious European power. Here, Poland can rely only on Serbs.

Serbia for alliance with Russia

as i said, Serbia isn`t in alliance with Russia. We have cooperation but its far from alliance. On the other side, part of official Poland complicate to Serbia and its Poland vs. Poland situation because part of Polish elite betrayed Polish national interests and serve to some balance of interests between Islamic powers/Germany/France/Britain/USA/Israel.

but, last time when Serbia was in alliance with Russia (before and during WWI), Poland won her indpendance. Thanks to that alliance, Serbians/Serbia was able to scr** archduke Ferdinand and to destabilize Austro-Hungaria.
southern 75 | 7,096  
17 Aug 2009 /  #12
Serbians/Serbia was able to scr** archduke Ferdinand

They did not just screw him.They eliminated him.
Crow 148 | 9,393  
17 Aug 2009 /  #13
true. It was necesery. He insulted Serbs and was simbol of oppresion and occupation. So, his assasination by Serbian Gavrilo happened as logical result of Ferdinand`s imperialistic dreams.

Slovaks needed that, Czechs and Poles expected something to happen and Serbs were under extraordinary pressure and they exploded in the face of Ferdinand. From one side Turks, on the other Austro-Hungaria and they allayed itself and divided region among themsleves. Serbian lands were in the middle of megalomanic plans of hostile non-Slavs. Exactly what happenings these days, just this time Britain, France and USA aren`t in alliance with Serbia but with Germanics. From pro-German- Hungary, Bulgaria, Croatian elite and, from pro-Italian/Turkish orriented Albania- nothing new. Romania and Greece are practicaly neutral, as they were back in time before WWI.
southern 75 | 7,096  
17 Aug 2009 /  #14
and Greece are practicaly neutral

Don't be so sure.Greeks were the only ones(apart the russians) to help Serbia during the recent war.

as they were back in time before WWI.

Crow
Member
Threads: 60
Posts: 2777
Joined: Feb 14, 07

I don't think you imply no antiturkish feelings in Greece before WW1.Greece and Serbia had mutual alliance to help each other in case of aggression towards any of the two countries.The pact worked in second balkan war and partly in WW1.
Crow 148 | 9,393  
17 Aug 2009 /  #15
Don't be so sure.Greeks were the only ones(apart the russians) to help Serbia during the recent war.

it is fact that Greaks helped but, their support seams dependant on Serbian stance on Macedonian question. Its not good

You know that Macedonian Slavs seek to achieve recognition of their nation. Those who wants to declare themselves as Macedonians could be right or could be wrong (by historical right) but in any case they are Slavs. Greaks and Bulgarians strongly oppose to process of constitution of Macedonian nation and they are openly hostile on Macedonia. In the same time, creation of Macedonian nation affecting Serbian national interests (origin of Macedonian Slavs is still opened question- they could be Serbs by origin; Macedonian nationalists push Macedonia in German sphere of influence) but, Serbs again stays loyal to key principle of their national program and stathood- NEVER IN ALLIANCE WITH NON-SLAVS AGAINST OTHER SLAVS. Also, Greaks knows that they could trust to Serbs because Serbs wouldn`t support any move against Greace as long as Greace respect suveregnity and free will of neighboring Slavs.

So, as much as Greaks don`t push Serbs against Macedonians, i can call them real and honest partners/friends. But, if they try to endanger Serbian moral values, to blackmail us, our relations could be agravated.

Even Serbian Orthoodx Church declared that it is ready to recognize independance/separation of Macedonian Orthodox Church from Serbian Orthodox Church.

In any case, position and oppinion of majority in Macedonian nation is respected by Serbians. If majority of Macedonians wants to be declared as Macedonians (and to have state name- Macedonia) they are free people and have right to do so. Macedonian Slavs got Serbian support no matter our own tragic and vulnerable situation.

i count on Greaks to follow Serbian example and give full respct to Macedonian suveregnity.
southern 75 | 7,096  
17 Aug 2009 /  #16
Macedonians could be right or could be wrong (by historical right) but in any case they are Slavs. Greaks and Bulgarians strongly oppose to process of constitution of Macedonian nation and they are openly hostile on Macedonia. In the same time, creation of Macedonian nation affecting Serbian national interests (origin of Macedonian Slavs is still opened question- they could be Serbs by origin;

Let's admit it,''Macedonians'' are in reality Bulgarians.Both Greeks and Bulgarians know that,it is no secret.(I suppose Serbs know it as well,otherwise serbification of ''Macedonia'' has failed while tried,why then?)
Crow 148 | 9,393  
17 Aug 2009 /  #17
Let's admit it,''Macedonians'' are in reality Bulgarians.

its not clear historicaly

there is few options: 1. Macedonian Slavs could be unique Slavic ethos- original Macedonians; 2. Macedonians could be so called `southern Serbs`, 3. Macedonians could be Bulgarians; 4. Macedonians could be some Slavic (Serbs/Bulgarians)-Greak mix; and after all 5. Macedonians could be some antic Slavic-Egyptian (from pre-Hellenic era) mix.

BUT, speaking about antiquity...

Bulgarians themselves could be result of mix, of native Slavs/Proto Slavs- Serbians (read- Sarmatians/Scythians) and newly arrived Semitics (Turkic tribes). Bulgarian language shows clear separation from Serbian language.

Also, Greaks could be ancient ethnic mix of native Slavs/Proto Slavs (Sarmatians/Scythians) and Egyptian/Semitic settlers on European soil.

So, let us just respect Macedonian choices, same way as we respect Bulgarian or Greak choices. If they wants to be Macedonians, their choice must be respected.

suppose Serbs know it as well,otherwise serbification of ''Macedonia'' has failed while tried,why then

you don`t understand

Serbia liberated Macedonia from Ottoman Turkish rule. Then, considering that Macedonia or Macedonian nation didn`t exist before Turkish occupation occured, Serbia did tried to incorporate Macedonia as one of Serbian lands. But on terain, only some Macedonian Slavs considred themselves Serbians. On the end, Yugoslavia was created (1918) and started separation of Macedonia from Serbia, what was good for Serbian ethnic being after all.

It is best that Macedonians choose for themselves, they are children of Slavic world anyway. If nothing, Serbians liberated them from Turkish rule and it would stays written in history. It was our mission as gate keepers of mother Slavija
southern 75 | 7,096  
17 Aug 2009 /  #18
If they wants to be Macedonians, their choice must be respected.

The name is a hot potato.Ancient Macedonia was part of greek civilization,they were not Slavs.
Today ''Macedonians'' admit they are Slavs but they want the name as well which does not belong to them.

3. Macedonians could be Bulgarians

Probably.But it is not in the interest of both Serbia and Greece to recognize them as Bulgarians.And if we destabilize them,the fekkers Albos who live there will revolt and a new Kosovo will appear.
Sasha 2 | 1,083  
17 Aug 2009 /  #19
Ancient Macedonia was part of greek civilization,they were not Slavs.

If I personally had to mark any officially non-slavic nation as Slavic Greeks would be the first in my hypothetical list. I've met them in Balkans and didn't really notice the difference in behaviour between them and other Balkan people. This was certainly my own impression which I don't want you guys to be seen as any sort of rule.

EDIT: Religion and location after all matter.
Crow 148 | 9,393  
17 Aug 2009 /  #20
The name is a hot potato.

truth. Topic has political consequences that affecting complete Slavic world. Its question of importance for history of all the Slavs in the world

Ancient Macedonia was part of greek civilization,they were not Slavs.

you don`t know that, you can`t say

What is known from old chronicles, Macedonians were not ethnic Greaks. It was separate, non-Hellenic ethos and by some rapports ancient Macedonians could be Slavs/Proto Slavs. Troja, Sparta, even such terms as name of `Hellenic` God Zeus sound very Slavic, you must admit.

Today ''Macedonians'' admit they are Slavs but they want the name as well which does not belong to them.

to whom belong then?

inhabitants of Macedonia has right on Macedonian name, no matter historic/political background of the region

Probably

i`m not sure

But it is not in the interest of both Serbia and Greece to recognize them as Bulgarians.

why not?

Bulgaria is pro-German oriented its fact. You think because of that?

And if we destabilize them,the fekkers Albos who live there will revolt and a new Kosovo will appear.

exactly
southern 75 | 7,096  
17 Aug 2009 /  #21
why no[quote=Sasha]and didn't really notice the difference in behaviour between them and other Balkan people.

Yes,Greeks,Serbs,Bulgarians are not very far in mentality.However constant occupation with trading and sea all over has given us some greater flexibility and cosmopolitan influence.

I separate Shriptars from other balkan folks because they origin from Caucasus and were living for centuries isolated in mountains so they developed a totally different mentality very distinct.

Macedonians were not ethnic Greaks. It was separate, non-Hellenic ethos

They actually spoke greek,had greek names,greek religion and considered themselves greek.They were however more primitive than Athenians of course,they had kings and did not resist persian invasion.Ancient Macedonians were Dorians like Spartans.Dorians were distinctly more primitive and military folks than the more artistic Ionians in Athens and islands.

Slavs/Proto Slavs

Slavs were probably the Skythes who are described by greek historians with customs and appearance resembling Slavs.Skythes also blocked the persian invasion and destroyed persian army in Danube.

to whom belong then?

It is very complicated issue.Macedonia is a big district which belongs partly to Greece,partly to Bulgaria,partly to Fyrom.All the inhabitants of this district can be called Macedonians.

Macedonia is greek word,it means (makos=length) land inhabited by tall men because ancient Macedonians are described as being very tall.These folks mixed later with Slavs.

why not?

Bulgaria

Because Greater Bulgaria will be a pain in the ass,do not forget history.
Mr Grunwald 31 | 2,103  
17 Aug 2009 /  #22
Yes somehow it is "RUSSIA IS TO POLAND WHAT TURKEY IS TO SOUTH SLAVS"

Although I think Turks know the feelings of the southern slavs tho I don't think any(sorry I mean most or a good poportion of em edited this so that Sasha wouldn't feel ignored) Russian knows about the Polish view of Russia.
Sasha 2 | 1,083  
17 Aug 2009 /  #23
I separate Shriptars from other balkan folks because they origin from Caucasus and were living for centuries isolated in mountains so they developed a totally different mentality very distinct.

You bet. I never mentioned them. I should have probably been more specific... my bad. Even their language is unique and forms the separate language group where only Albanian is. Quite ironic... One group and one language inside of it. "Who wants to deal with us? First country gets 50% discount for any drugs..."
rock - | 460  
17 Aug 2009 /  #24
Who are Bulgars ?

They are slavized Turks for sure.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars
southern 75 | 7,096  
17 Aug 2009 /  #25
Who are Bulgars ?

They are slavized Turks for sure.

Yes man.Keep dreaming.Bulgarians appeared in the region in 8th century while Turks were still in Turkmenistan.Actually Mongols invaded the land in 7th century and mixed with local Slavs.They may have been militarilly successfull but slavic gene pool actually prevailed and mongol genes almost disappeared.
rock - | 460  
17 Aug 2009 /  #26
What you don't understand is different tribes of Turks migrate to different parts of Europe and Asia in different ages.

To make it easy for you to understand, most of the Turks living in Turkey is from the Oğuz branch of Turks. Bulgars are another branch of Turks.

You can think the name Turk like Slav and Türkiye as Slavia. If Turkey would take the name of the major branch of Turks living in Turkey, The name of Turkish Republic would be Oğuz Republic.
Ironside 50 | 11,257  
17 Aug 2009 /  #27
because Polish elite betrayed Polish national interests

Sure, that why you should forget about Polish help.

To make it easy for you to understand, most of the Turks living in Turkey is from the Oğuz branch of Turks. Bulgars are another branch of Turks.

Whats about majority of the natives in those lands - Romanoi ?
southern 75 | 7,096  
17 Aug 2009 /  #28
Bulgars are another branch of Turks.

Bulgars comes from the word bulg which means mix and vulgar has the same root.Bulgarians were called like this by byzantine historians because they came from a mix between Slavs who were already there and Mongols who invaded the place between Danube and balkan mountains.
rock - | 460  
17 Aug 2009 /  #29
Whats about majority of the natives in those lands - Romanoi ?

There are 2.000 romas living in Turkey.

Bulgars comes from the word bulg which means mix and vulgar has the same ro

The word bulga means mixing in ancient Turkish.

Anyway, Bulgars don't accept their roots. At least they are Turco-Slavic.
Ironside 50 | 11,257  
17 Aug 2009 /  #30
There are 2.000 romas living in Turkey.

I meant Romans.

Archives - 2005-2009 / News / RUSSIA IS TO POLAND WHAT TURKEY IS TO SOUTH SLAVSArchived