Comparing and Contrasting: Why Pan-Germanism Succeeded While Pan-Slavism (in Yugoslavia) Failed

[poiuytrewq0987]

I want to draw some comparisons between Pan-Germanism in greater Germania and Pan-Slavism in the Balkans and perhaps discover the reasoning behind the failure of Pan-Slavism in the Balkans.

Firstly let's examine how Pan-Germanism started in Germania. Most of my knowledge regarding the roots of Pan-Germanism is from Wiki so I have to draw conclusions from Wiki's article on Pan-Germanism. It said it all began after the invasion of Napoleon which gave reason for Germans who have been very feudal for many centuries. The Holy Roman Empire itself wasn't very unified as a political entity since the states were acting independently. Obviously as a result of that, the Germans whose rears were kicked by Napoleon who came from France and the Frenchmen were unified into a single political entity and could coordinate war efforts much more easily.

The Germans obviously noted the Napoleon's conquest of the HRE as how weak and divided Germania was and the need for it to unify. And they didn't really unify until Prussia came along in the 1800s. It was with the military prowess of Prussia that much of Germania was able to be unified under a single ruler, a single government and unto a single country, the German Empire. It seems like Pan-Germanism was a successful idea only through the military actions of Prussia. I have to ask what happened if Prussia failed to unify Germans through military means. Would they've unified through diplomatic means and created some sort of a federation or what?

How a Pan-Slavic State of Yugoslavia in the Balkans was created is quite different from how the German Empire was created. Yugoslavia was created as a result of voluntary union of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. It was never created as a result of one faction defeating others and forcing on them a Yugoslavia like Prussia had done. I can note some differences between Yugoslavia and Germany. The people in Germany aren't so different from each others. In the north you had protestants whose physical traits were typically Nordid and Baltid. In the south you had the catholics who were typically sub-Nordid and Alpinid. No large differences that can be noted.

In Yugoslavia you had the Muslims in Bosnia, Catholics in Slovenia and Croatia and Orthodox Christians in Serbia and Montenegro. The Yugoslav people (Serbs, Bulgarians, Croats, Muslims, Montenegrins, and Vardarians) didn't really differ from each others genetics-wise. The genetics of the Balkan peoples aren't very different from each others, while there may be some differences if you compared from one corner to other but that is very small and negligible as it is in Germany.

Aside large religious differences (the East/West Schism and Islam), there was no "Yugoslav" language in comparison of a German language that went as far as dialects but no separate German languages. While Serbo-Croatian was a good substitute but I believe there should've been an attempt to create a Yugoslav language as a way to bring the people together through linguistics. Religious differences could've been solved through the creation of a Yugoslav Church that separated itself from the East/West Schism and Protestantism but stayed Christian that was unique from other churches.

Anyhow besides religious, and linguistic differences the people in Yugoslavia continued to identify as Serb, or Croat or Slovene instead of just Yugoslav like the Germans had done. The Germans called themselves German instead of Saxon, Bavarian or Westphalian for example. I always found that interesting that the Germans were quick to call themselves German and away from regional designations. This obviously wasn't the case in Yugoslavia and I feel this is one of the reasons why Yugoslavia failed.

I can't think of any other examples right now so if you do have others then please do contribute. :)

[Tabiti]

In Yugoslavia you had the Muslims in Bosnia, Catholics in Slovenia and Croatia and Orthodox Christians in Serbia and Montenegro. The Yugoslav people (Serbs, Bulgarians, Croats, Muslims, Montenegrins, and Vardarians) didn't really differ from each others genetics-wise.
I thought Bulgarians are closer to Romanians and Greeks genetically.
Pan-Slavism have always been one of the biggest enemies of Bulgaria. I don't care for the neighboring nations, I just don't want it here.

[poiuytrewq0987]

I thought Bulgarians are closer to Romanians and Greeks genetically.
Pan-Slavism have always been one of the biggest enemies of Bulgaria. I don't care for the neighboring nations, I just don't want it here.

This chart (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml) is good information as it shows Y-DNA frequencies in each countries. And as you can see all Slavic Balkan countries aren't very different.

Yes, we've went to war with other states like Serbia and Greece. But I am willing to put behind the past, are you? Keep this in mind, if you're going to use wars between both countries as a reason why friendship and union should never be considered then compare us to the Germans they fought each others a lot but now they are best friends in a federal Germany (and Nazi Germany before its fall).

[Tabiti]

If you rely on some DNA samples, all humanity have similar genetics.

Words like Balkans and unions just don't fit together, dear. If you lived in Bulgaria you'd know that yourself.

[Cail]

I thought Bulgarians are closer to Romanians and Greeks genetically.
Pan-Slavism have always been one of the biggest enemies of Bulgaria. I don't care for the neighboring nations, I just don't want it here.

Actually Pan-Slavism played a very significant role in Bulgaria's liberation from Turks (if not for Russians, Balkans' history could be very different).

[Cail]

Btw, from linguistic point of view, German dialects are way more distant from each other than Serbian and Croatian are. That - even if we don't count Low German ones, only Hochdeutsch dialects. If we take all Germanic sub-languages spoken in Germany, many of them are as distant as Slovenian and Bulgarian are, if not more.

[Saruman]

I think nordids tend to be unselfish, while dinarids tend to be selfish and egoist, hence a good ground for eternal divisions. So this is not only about nationhood, religion. Go to Split and try to pass as a man from Zagreb, and especially yell "Dinamo", and then you'll see what I'm talking about.:D

Bu had Tito lived much longer(though he lived long 88) I think "Yugoslav" nation could have been well formed.

[poiuytrewq0987]

If you rely on some DNA samples, all humanity have similar genetics.

Words like Balkans and unions just don't fit together, dear. If you lived in Bulgaria you'd know that yourself.

The last time I was in Bulgaria was 2 years ago and I stayed over there for three months (I usually come out there for summers). So I do have an idea what the general mentality of Bulgarians are. I may be one of the very few Bulgarians who like the idea of a Yugoslavia. But what people need to do is put aside petty nationalism as it has accomplished us nothing but multiple defeats in three major wars. Clearly petty nationalism is not the answer but rather an union between Slavs in the Balkans and that'd put us back on the world stage and no longer at the mercy of larger countries like Russia, the USA or other Western European countries who are more militarily capable than we are.

The reality is simple, divided we are weak but united we are strong. Tito's Yugoslavia is all the evidence we need to bring up to prove my point. They had the most powerful non-nuclear army that was practically uncontested (the reason why Stalin never invaded Yugoslavia to get it back in his sphere of influence). Tito's Yugoslavia was practically Nazi Germany reincarnated because it was strong, independent and patriotic (until its later years). Which is exactly what Nazi Germany was, it had the most powerful land army, it threw off the shackles they had put on post-Versailles Treaty and patriotism was at an all time high in Germany. I believe in strength, independence and love for the country. Three important things that is needed for the general welfare of a country.

Bulgarians today may be patriotic but is Bulgaria strong and independent? Hardly nor will it be for many decades. Bulgaria is still at the mercy of larger countries. We're practically whores to countries who are more powerful than us. If Turkey declared war on us today, they'd crush us militarily, and quite terribly I might add. Turkey is essentially Germany's version of France. And what happened to the Holy Roman Empire? It was divided and weak, Napoleon took full advantage of that and invaded HRE and won quite easily until Napoleon finally faced an adversary that was strong and united - Russia.

Just imagine the Balkans to be today's Holy Roman Empire. Practically all Slavic states in the Balkans are weak militarily and economically. If the Slavic states went up against Turkey on a one versus one war - Turkey would win all of them. Why? Because the Turkish are united, they're strong as a result of being united. Just like France was united and the Holy Roman Empire wasn't. However try to imagine a scenario where Slavic States of the Balkans create a new Yugoslavia and all of the sudden we're a larger adversary for Turkey. Our military is now powerful, our economy is now revving, our technological advancements are now daily and we're to be taken seriously because we're large, strong and more importantly we're united for a single cause and that cause is Yugoslavia.

[Tabiti]

Actually Pan-Slavism played a very significant role in Bulgaria's liberation from Turks (if not for Russians, Balkans' history could be very different).
That was the only good point. All the people from Russia (including many from the so called "republics") left their bones here. The rest is quite tyrannic politics lead by the Russian imperialism, including the "corrections" in our history and language.
Void, Bulgaria is a whore because our politicians today are whores. They like unions, no matter with whom, as long as their pockets are full. We are in badly need for more national independent politics, not unions with past and present enemies. Seems you spared too much time with some Serbian "online" activists on various boards. Yes, they look "strong".

The last time I was in Bulgaria was 2 years ago and I stayed over there for three months (I usually come out there for summers). So I do have an idea what the general mentality of Bulgarians are.

No, you don't. Next time just go into one bookstore and get some books in history. That will be helpful. OK?

Our military is now powerful, our economy is now revving, our technological advancements are now daily and we're to be taken seriously because we're large, strong and more importantly we're united for a single cause and that cause is Yugoslavia.
:confused:
You sound worse then communists. They left Macedonia in the hands of Tito, however at least never united with him, neither with USSR. Not that there weren't such ideas...

However try to imagine a scenario where Slavic States of the Balkans create a new Yugoslavia and all of the sudden we're a larger adversary for Turkey.
Sounds like a good plot for some sci-fi movie.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Void, Bulgaria is a whore because our politicians today are whores. They like unions, no matter with whom, as long as their pockets are full. We are in badly need for more national independent politics, not unions with past and present enemies. Seems you spared too much time with some Serbian "online" activists on various boards. Yes, they look "strong".

No, I'm drawing from history and it is a fact that Yugoslavia had the most powerful non-nuclear land army.


No, you don't. Next time just go into one bookstore and get some books in history. That will be helpful. OK?
Don't think I've been to Bulgaria only once in my entire life. The country is a part of me and while I may have grew up in the USA but I've had regular contact with my family over there, went over there many times for summers for extended periods of time (but haven't lately because of the bad economy and college getting in the way). So try to be a bit less of a jerk.


:confused:
You sound worse then communists. They left Macedonia in the hands of Tito, however at least never united with him, neither with USSR. Not that there weren't such ideas...
Actually Yugoslavia was going to integrate Bulgaria and Albania but that plan fell apart after the Tito-Stalin Split.


Sounds like a good plot for some sci-fi movie.Now you're just being pissy.

[Tabiti]

Sorry, but I can't stop being a "jerk" after your kind of "nationalism" is sort of shocking. I'll even give you an advise - never ever try to post on Bulgarian boards, guys there aren't that polite. Same goes for Serbian ones.


Now you're just being pissy.
No, I'm being just realistic.
BTW, living in USA for years is not an excuse. I know some people from there who are much more realistic as it comes for politics, history, culture and so.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Sorry, but I can't stop being a "jerk" after your kind of "nationalism" is sort of shocking. I'll even give you an advise - never ever try to post on Bulgarian boards, guys there aren't that polite. Same goes for Serbian ones.

I know it is, that much is clear to me (as anyone could ascertain if they tried to be similar to me). I could go all out, and shout pro-Bulgarian slogans, and chant for a Greater Bulgaria, demand Vardar be reintegrated with Bulgaria, et cetera... But even if we achieved Greater Bulgaria we'd still be at the mercy of powers who will continue to be stronger than us even after a Greater Bulgaria is achieved. The problem with nationalism is it keeps people narrow-minded over a few km of territorial gain instead of looking at the bigger picture and how to achieve complete and total security for our people.



No, I'm being just realistic.If that's what you want to feel that way then that's okay with me. You have the right to your own opinion. :)



BTW, living in USA for years is not an excuse. I know some people from there who are much more realistic as it comes for politics, history, culture and so. I'm hardly ignorant on the matter of history. I'm a pretty big history buff, when I was growing up I'd read through whole textbooks of history the schools provided us with. And because I had done that I craved to know more and I just kept learning about history of many different countries, and yes that includes Bulgaria. ;)

[Tabiti]

The problem with nationalism is it keeps people narrow-minded over a few km of territorial gain instead of looking at the bigger picture and how to achieve complete and total security for our people.

Exactly this is nationalism. The other is called internationalism. As Bulgarians we must follow nationalism, no other way because origins, history and national characteristics. No friends, no brothers. Be proud of that. It's harder to be Bulgarian nationalist than a Yugoslavian one, for example. Be proud of what you are, no what others want you to be. You would be never Slavic enough to be Panslavist, neither Hellenic, neither Germanic, neither FU, because you're Bulgarian. Always remember that and don't try to copy all the "pan-ists" out there.

But even if we achieved Greater Bulgaria
Why we should achieve it now or in the near years? We have so many problems in the territories that left, so the first is to try saving them.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Exactly this is nationalism. The other is called internationalism.

So it was awful when Bavaria joined hands with Prussia? When England joined hands with Scotland? When Savoy joined hands with Naples? Yugoslavia is hardily an internationalist idea, it is an union of common peoples, peoples that we can consider to be our brothers. I may be Yugoslav first but I do treasure my Bulgarian identity because it is a big part of who I am. I just believe in and I don't want to make it a pun but it's in brotherhood with other peoples who are close to us. I don't really see any point in disliking others just because our ancestors had bad blood with them and theirs with us.


As Bulgarians we must follow nationalism, no other way because origins, history and national characteristics. No friends, no brothers. Be proud of that. It's harder to be Bulgarian nationalist than a Yugoslavian one, for example.Adopting Yugoslav nationalism doesn't necessarily mean you have to forgo your Bulgarian identity. I know I haven't. And Bavarians of today can be used as an example for preserving their ethnic identity despite them being a part of federal Germany. They see themselves as German and Bavarian. It'd be the same for us if Bulgaria was to become part of Yugoslavia. It's probably important for me to mention that I do not put my embrace for Yugoslavia above Bulgaria because I consider both to be equal. What's good for Yugoslavia has to be good for Bulgaria, and vice versa. :)


Be proud of what you are, no what others want you to be. You would be never Slavic enough to be Panslavist, neither Hellenic, neither Germanic, neither FU, because you're Bulgarian. Always remember that and don't try to copy all the "pan-ists" out there.I am, and my embrace for Yugoslavia is entirely my own. But here you go again questioning our Slavic roots. We are essentially the fathers of everything Slavic, we gave them the alphabet, the religion, and other fundamentals that made Slavic, Slavic. Bulgaria was at one time the center of learning and culture for Slavic peoples until it was subjugated by the Byzantines and again by the Turks.


Why we should achieve it now or in the near years? We have so many problems in the territories that left, so the first is to try saving them.We certainly have problems in our country, everyone does. But we do have to look at the bigger picture sometimes.

[Tabiti]

Adopting Yugoslav nationalism doesn't necessarily mean you have to forgo your Bulgarian identity. I know I haven't. And Bavarians of today can be used as an example for preserving their ethnic identity despite them being a part of federal Germany. They see themselves as German and Bavarian. It'd be the same for us if Bulgaria was to become part of Yugoslavia. It's probably important for me to mention that I do not put my embrace for Yugoslavia above Bulgaria because I consider both to be equal. What's good for Yugoslavia has to be good for Bulgaria, and vice versa.
I think you seriously mistake ethnographic groups and nationalities.

We are essentially the fathers of everything Slavic, we gave them the alphabet, the religion, and other fundamentals that made Slavic, Slavic. Bulgaria was at one time the center of learning and culture for Slavic peoples until it was subjugated by the Byzantines and again by the Turks.
We are essentially the creators of a culture, called today Slavic. Don't forget that Cyrillic alphabet was created mainly to serve the purposes of the spread of Byzantium christianity. So Slavic (in cultural and religious aspect) can be called also "Bulgaro-Byzantine".

Bulgaria was at one time the center of learning and culture
As well as Byzantium. Were Byzantines Slavs?

[poiuytrewq0987]

I think you seriously mistake ethnographic groups and nationalities.

I don't think I am mistaken. Being German means you are a part of the greater German people who makes up the population of Germany. And to be a Yugoslav? It means you're a part of the South Slavic people.


We are essentially the creators of a culture, called today Slavic. Don't forget that Cyrillic alphabet was created mainly to serve the purposes of the spread of Byzantium christianity. So Slavic (in cultural and religious aspect) can be called also "Bulgaro-Byzantine".

As well as Byzantium. Were Byzantines Slavs?The glagolitic alphabet may have been popularized by two Greeks but we took the alphabet and evolved it into something greater, and spread it into much of Eastern Europe. The extent of our Byzantinness is of similar extent of an Englishman's Romanness. The Roman Catholic Church influenced much of Western Europe and the Byzantine Church (or Greek) influenced much of Eastern Europe. But religion isn't the only Slavic thing about our people. It's our traditions, our culture, and our bond with other Yugoslavs.

[Tabiti]

Strange, why the ethnic term Yugoslav become popular in 20th century?

If we follow your logic, then Germany, Scandinavia and part of UK should be united, because they are considered Germanic or partly Germanic. Spain should be together with Italy and Romania? And what about France?

[poiuytrewq0987]

Strange, why the ethnic term Yugoslav become popular in 20th century?

It isn't really strange, we were occupied by the Ottomans for many centuries. Things always take time to mature. Pan-Germanism just matured earlier than pan-Yugoslavism did.


If we follow your logic, then Germany, Scandinavia and part of UK should be united, because they are considered Germanic or partly Germanic. Spain should be together with Italy and Romania? And what about France?Well, that's not really what I was getting to nor what I meant.


Germans, for the most part, had been a loose and disunited people since the Reformation when the Holy Roman Empire was shattered into a patchwork of states. The new German nationalists, mostly young reformers such as Johann Tillmann of East Prussia, sought to unite all the German-speaking and ethnic-German (Volksdeutsche) people.