I finally did it, I fixed the Balkans

I finally did it, I fixed the Balkans.
Now you can all be happy.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcek
dnes.dir.bg/news/italia-bulgaria-pametnik-han-altzek-22895086
novinite.com/articles/128804/Bulgarian Toponyms in Italy
homepage.univie.ac.at/ilja.steffelbauer/DAI.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

You can go kill yourself

Why so much anger?
We love Serbians in Greece.

>Alboroachia and Alboroaches still existing

You had one job Greece.

Some more of ucraine has to go to romania, like the south part beetwen moldova and the black sea

What's the problem?

>serbia owning half of fyrom
>serbia owning eastern croatia
yeah... no

No one deserves to die, man. We should all just have nation states, with every ethnic group in their own country.

Ideally, Albanians will be Christianized though. That's why I removed Bosnia. South Slavs are just divided by Orthodoxy and Catholicism, so Bosniaks will be converted into Orthodox or Catholic Christians based on whether they are in Serbia or Croatia. There may still be some issues with the way I divided Srpska, but I think it's mostly minor. Bosniaks are more or less divided half and half between Serbia and Croatia.

Why isn't Istria and Dalmazia annexed to Italy? Stupid greece

because it belongs to croatia you filthy baboon

You didn't even give yourself Thrace? What the fuck?

Fuck you subhuman slavshit, we made you free with the Germany and we'll take our lands back. Stay in the woods, aborigens.

I finally did it, I fixed the Balkans.
Now you can all be happy.

he is just a Tsipras voter.

dont mind that cuck
Megali Idea still lives

>meds
>calling anyone subhuman
TOP KEK

Yes, take their coast, they never deserved it.
We should've split it with you after WW1.
One of the biggest mistakes of the 20th century.

>fixing the Balkans

We have a comedian in the house.

Not half. I divided FYROM based on the Vardar river, which is consistent with the ethnic groups of the country.

Starting north of the Vardar, land that connects with Kosovo and Albania until Lake Ohrid contains Albanians.

Bulgarians are east of Vardar.

Rest of the country are purer South Slavs that fit better with Serbians, because they don't have Bulgar-Tatar components.

Technically, there are some Greeks in Pelagonia, but whatever. I haven't included Pelagonia or Northern Epirus in Greece, because I don't want us to deal with minorities. Besides, it's nice to have Serbians as neighbors.

For most of us there was nothing wrong with you... We'll take Slovenia and half of the Italian territories under croats occupation and you take your own

Don't forget Northern Epirus and Pelagonia.

Don't want to deal with minorities. We're a nice, neat country with a lot of geostrategic advantages. It's better to develop a good relationship with Albania, Serbia and Bulgaria than having a fuckton of Albanians and Slavs in Greece. Not even getting into Turks. We couldn't even get rid of those in our own Thrace. No. Just no.

Deal.

>Starting north of the Vardar
I meant north-western in case it wasn't obvious.

>Constantinople still Turkish
You are a disgrace to your people.

I'm not sure if we had much choice at that time. A lot of decisions were made for us.

I like Greece and Serbia but I don't know if it's reciprocated. Bulgarians don't like us and Croats always seem butthurt.

Greece population: 11 million
Constantinople population: 14 million

top kek

We hate you ever since you bombed us and you have to admit it's justified.
I don't know why most of Brits hate us though.
We were allies in WW1 and 2, we were never at war (except the bombing) and aren't even close geographically.
That's a fucking mystery.

>I don't know why most of Brits hate us though.
Because you act like fucking niggers
you can't even argue with me on this

kill yourself

pic related is the only way

all these clumps of shitballs are called countries?

They hate Slavic immigrants in general. So, no mystery.

my house is older than your country

>We couldn't even get rid of those in our own Thrace.
or maybe you didn't want to

Maybe you should stop living in a cave Hrvoje.

...

that's fine except montenegro shouldnt be a thing

>est of the country are purer South Slavs that fit better with Serbians

All of Macedonia with the exception of alboshits are pure Bulgarians genetically. Don't be ignorant.

it has more history and more legitimacy than bosnia lol kys mudslime

I can see why you hate us for that. Fuck Clinton.

I have a Serbian uncle and he genuinely despises Croats.

>Bulgarians don't like us

Because all the gypsies from Bulgaria emigrated to the UK for gibs and you think they are actual Bulgarians. Stop being a fuckhead and we won't have anything against you.... well except that moment when you split our country in 3 and we still can't unite with Macedonia, but I digress.

Gypsies are Bulgarians though

Most Europeans just dislike "Slavs" in general. That's likely because they generalize Slavs based on Russians or Poles, which they interact more with. It's an unfair generalization, of course. Southern Slavs are nothing like Russians.

I like Brits just fine. Different from us culturally, but extremely successful on their own right. Not without their faults, but great explorers and innovators who did more good than harm to the world overall.

Nope, Bulgarians are fine as they are. Pelagonia and Skopje goes to Serbia, and Montenegro needs to stop pretending it's not Serbia. They are stronger together.

Yeah, because Greeks are not savages. Just like when you kept Turks in Cyprus back in 1960. It turned out terribly, but it's not like you could have outright killed them.

That's why I'm against having minorities within the country at all. It just won't turn out well.

just dissolve servia and all the other countries around will be able to make a deal easily, problem solved

Bulgaria proper is based in Thracia, and Bulgarians are a mix of Bulgars, South Slavs and Thracians. The core of the Bulgar Khanate didn't extend to FYROM.

FYROM is not in Thracia either, so they are quite different genetically. They are in the Thracian-Illyrian border (Paeonia, specifically) much like Serbia.

Nigger, we were constantly fighting with the Turkish Cypriots up until 1974. Also back in 1960 the Turks expelled almost every signle Greek from Constantinople because of literal fake news about how Ataturk's house was bombed and you cucked out on doing the same on the Turks in Thrace. "Greeks aren't savages" never applies when we're dealing with Turks.

It has tons of history, but that doesn't mean it should be an independent country. It should be part of Serbia, much like Crete is part of Greece.

:^)

I fixed the Balkans.

>how do I shot web
>dunno lol

Reality is different than your propaganda fed lies. Stop being ignorant. I understand you think you know stuff, but pic related.

It's not your fault you have been taught lies tho, I get it.

fixed map

I don't know what I'm looking at, neither do I care

then fuck off you bitter faggot

but that map is super old. it must be like 7th-8th century. from the 9th century onwards Macedonia was always in glorious khanate

"Propaganda"? Bro, no one cares. I was never taught Bulgarian history through any official means in Greece. I do my own research. Those are political divisions, not ethnic ones. If we take the maximum extent of each country, essentially all of them will be superimposed on each other. I'll own Iran and Egypt by that logic. My point is that "Bulgaria proper" is the core of the original Bulgar Khanate, which is south of Danube and extends around Preslav. The Bulgar component is what makes Bulgarians "Bulgarian" and not "Serbian", because otherwise you're pretty close anyway.

If you're talking about the Greek areas that once belonged "politically" to Bulgaria, that's a dumb point. There was never much hostility about them, and there are no "Bulgarians" there anymore. They either left or assimilated. Nowadays, those areas are mostly home to refugee Greeks that came in the population trade with Turkey in 1923. They outnumber all previous populations.

Anyway, there's no point in arguing. I don't really mind if Pelagonia and Skopje go to Bulgaria, I just think they are a better fit for Serbia.

Based.

eat shit loser cucks

not even muslim, am from serb part

montenegro still isnt a thing, they're mountain serbs

>bosnian roman catholic kings
note to roman catholic

THEY WERE FUCKING CROATIAN STOP THIS MEME

>Those are political divisions, not ethnic ones. If we take the maximum extent of each country, essentially all of them will be superimposed on each other. I'll own Iran and Egypt by that logic.

Your logic is sound, but you are starting from the wrong initial facts thus your entire argument is false. Your research is incomplete.

Pic related, there have been many Bulgarian Khanates ranging thousands of years ago. We are a unique ethnicity that has kept itself in the roughly same form for many thousands of years.

There was a Great Bulgaria (land of origin) in Central Asia/Pamir area 2 or 3 thousand years ago, then we moved North/North-West and formed Kubrat's Bulgaria, after that was overrun Khan Kubrat's sons spread in 6 or 7 streams of Bulgars.

For example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcek the ones that went to Italy left their mark and nowadays many villages, mountains and rivers in Central italy have Bulgar names. They even celebrate the Khan every year and put up a statue for him last year. The statue: dnes.dir.bg/news/italia-bulgaria-pametnik-han-altzek-22895086
The names: novinite.com/articles/128804/Bulgarian Toponyms in Italy

>what is your point

My point is that you can see the map you posted and the one in pic related, Khan Asparuh's Bulgars were just one of the streams that spread around. He stayed north of the Danube less than a decade and then moved south, taking land from Byzantium and mixing with the slav tribes + whatever was left of the thracians at that point. Those are the modern day Bulgarians. The lands in this map are the ones he took and have been inhabited by us for 14 centuries >If you're talking about the Greek areas that once belonged "politically" to Bulgaria

I am not. This "political" bullshit is quite untruthful tho. Those lands were ours for centuries and inhabited by pure Bulgarians. After the Russians freed us and Bulgaria was split most Bulgarians left and you took the land.

So, the non-Srpska part of Bosnia was actually once "Croat"? Meaning Catholic South Slavs? I always assumed Bosniacs were actually Muslim Serbs, not Muslim Croats. The formation in pic related would make more sense that way.

Any idea how the formation ended up like that? How did Serbs manage to "surround" Croats/Bosniacs?

>essentially all of them will be superimposed on each other
agreed on this, but you're using a flawed methodology. the map you used in you original post is the original settlement of the bulgars. and a large swathe of it includes romania, but you ignore that. it doesn't include anything south of the balkan mountains but you ignored that too and gave us enormous amounts of clay beyond that in your op. for most of history, macedonia has been part of bulgaria, except for those times we lost statehood.

not sure what your basing this idea that the vardar river seperates bulgarians and serbs on.

Yea we only had Western Bosnia.The actual Bosnia was Croat.

As for the we surrounded them when we where moving North to Hungary during the Ottoman times.

Muslims come from both countries.

AFAIK Bosnians are Serbs who chose to convert instead of fight the roaches. Am I wrong?

yes
btw why don't you focus on european part of roachistan instead of trying to take clay from greece and serbia?

>instead of trying to take clay from greece and serbia?

I am not. What gave you that idea?

Well for the most part.There are probably some Croats mixed there as well since the Ottomans did occupy a part of Croatia.

Medieval Bosnia was a region in croatia,until the Croatian nobility died off,and they pulled out.To justify their "nationality" they created the Bosnian Church,considered heretical by Both the Catholic and Orthodox ones.

So one could say they are actually staing true to their history by LARPING as Muslims.

Yeah, I'm aware of the Bulgarian ethnogenesis, or its basics. I'd like to say that not everything the Bulgars did is exactly relevant to Bulgaria though. I mean, just like there are Slavs outside Buglaria, there are Bulgars outside Bulgaria.

My understanding is that Bulgarians =

Slavicized union of
(
Bulgars
+
Seven Slavic tribes
+
Indigenous Thracians
+
Other Slavs, Greeks and Vlachs in the region
)
ruled by Khan Asparukh

I have to agree that it's a very interesting origin story few other nations can claim.

FYROM has been part of Bulgaria for a long time. You could make a point that it belongs better with Bulgaria than Serbia if only because of the fact that they speak the Bulgarian language. I guess my point is that FYROM is not part of "Bulgaria proper" as much as other areas in Bulgaria are because it's not a place where the original three main components of the Bulgarian identity were prevalent. It was incorporated to Bulgaria through (fair) expansionism. Still, I guess we don't really disagree on anything. Your points are correct.

>Not giving Odessa, rightful Romanian clay

GTFOutta here

i wasn't talking about (You), i was referring to your fellow countrymen as a whole

Bruh Eastern Thrace , Asia Minor and Constantinople belong to us....

Rest of Cuckedonia should go to Bulgaria, not Serbia. Leave Montenegro alone too.

The only way to fix the balkans is to turn it into a giant crater

>I guess my point is that FYROM is not part of "Bulgaria proper" as much as other areas in Bulgaria are because it's not a place where the original three main components of the Bulgarian identity were prevalent.

I get your theory, but there is no genetic difference between FYROM and Bulgaria, so the theory cannot be defended.

It's like choosing a random Greek city and claiming it's not like the other Greek cities.

Bulgars+Slavs+Thracian (small percentage) is uniform across all Bulgarian lands including FYROM.

No one does really. The time of redrawing borders is long gone.

We have a hard on for the real history of the region for honesty's sake, no one wants any of the lands back. It's not possible nowadays.

We live in the era of self-determination when every small ethnic village can announce independence and be defended by the UN and NATO.

The only way to redraw borders is either by a union of two states into one or some bullshit outbreeding the locals and claiming independence crap like Kosovo or what's going to happen here in another few years.

>or what's going to happen here in another few years
what's gonna happen in bulgaria?

give Romania bigger clay

>t. third world shithole

Gypsies and Turks

Nothing, he's swallowing propaganda claiming that the turks will somehow congregate together in one spot and form a separate country. That will never happen, and it will be prevented specifically by the EU if it magically did because that disrupts all their plans and allows for a spot of significant geopolitical value (southern Bulgaria) to become influenced by non-EU nations and technically block the Asian route

Small correction, Thracians were not actually in small percentage. They probably make up at least 50% of the genepool, but they were more gradually Slavicised by the the Seven Slavic Tribes (as well as other Slavs) between the 3rd and the 5th century. So by the time the Bulgars arrived in Bulgaria, they were essentially merged with the Slavs. The only "pure" Thracian remnants can be argued to be the Vlachs in the Bulgaria/FYROM region.

I mean, it's no coincidence that we are quite similar (phenotypically) despite the fact that you also have Slavic and Oghur origins. Your history, language and culture may have foreign components, but you are quite indigenous to the Balkans.

Acceptional

Ftfy.

Just kys.

Bosnia was historically Croatian, yes. Serbs did have the southeastern blanks however

what kind of meme map is this

There are about 8% muslims in Bulgaria, but they are all pure Bulgarians, there are no t*rks. They don't breed like roaches, they eat pork and drink alcohol, etc. They are 100% Bulgarians genetically whose ancestors were forcefully converted during the slavery.

It is a historical fact that after the Russians freed us all the roaches left, also, all the Bulgarians were kicked out from any area in the roach territories.

Sadly, during the years after WW2 and after the commie take over no one paid attention to straighten the situation. Turkey infiltrated a bunch of agents and started working in secret convincing the muslim population that they are somehow t*rks. After communism fell the country was too poor to do anything and the myth continued.

Due to the impotence of both commies and later democrats, the state was absent and now these people are convinced they are t*rks. We might be seeing another Kosovo in the future, if T*rkey decides to push it.

There are already flags of "Independent T*rk Territory in Bulgaria" sold online in T*rkey.

Territory of Serbia in 960's compared to today's Serbia.

Hm, maybe, since there was a civil war in Croatia at that time.
But just by seeing dubrovnik in yours borders gives me idea much more territory is wrongly presented in that map

The idea of Serb being in Dalmatia is written in the Frankish Annals But Dubrovnik was not a part of it.

>no Italian Istria and Dalmatia.
0/10

LIJEPA NAAAAŠAAAA DOMOVIIIINOOOO

Pretty sceptical about this. There were political states such as Zahumlje, Travunja, Duklja, and i see on lots of maps serbs are trying to present them as serbian, just as Croats are presenting them as "Red Croatia" and/or parts of Croatia during some reigns

serb on a stick = best serb

NDH PLS ANNEX

>Zahumlje, Travunja, Duklja
all of them were serbian states

chuckled

they were a part Medieval Serbia, stated in all sources which talk about them. you can't disprove that anyways

*part of

>they were a part Medieval Serbia

based on what merit should Croatia get any part of Bosnia, it never belonged to it and it never will.

They were independant slavic states, more Croatian then serbian in any case

Like i said these are Frankish sources,not sources from some Serbian historians during the 19th century.

homepage.univie.ac.at/ilja.steffelbauer/DAI.pdf
Page 161
>Of the Zachlumi and of the country they now dwell in
>the country of Zachlumi was previouslypossed by the Rommans,i mean those Rommani whom Diocletian the emperor translated from as has been told in the story of the Croats.Zachlumi was beneath the emperor of Romans,but when it and its folk where enslaved by the Avars it became desolate.Those who live there ,the Zachlumi,are Serbs from the time the prince claimed protection of Heraclius.

There that's a Byzantiine source,regarded by most Croats as true,because it puts Croats at an higher pedastol then Serbs.Duclea had a Serbian prince.No idea about Zahumlje.

soon

*prepares srbosjek*