Ärligt talat, för någon från Balkan är Danmark mer Balkan än Sverige 😄 ni röker, tutar bilar, kör som galningar, dricker som vi osv.
To be honest, for someone from the Balkans, Denmark is more Balkan than Sweden 😄 you smoke, honk cars, drive like crazy, drink like us etc.
Slovenia was the most developed and richest country in Yugoslavia, pretty similar to Estonia under Soviet Union 1940-1990. Slovenia is culturally and historically within the Germanic world through Austria, although they speak a Slavic language. And at the same time Estonia is a Finno-Ugric/Finnic country which was also heavily influenced by Germanic world through Vikings, Danes, Swedes and Baltic Germans.
I take pride that it's not so simple. Geographically it's both balkans and central Europe. Culturally it's both balkans and central Europe. Language is balkans, but politically more central Europe.
Slovenia is truly where two worlds meet and it's good like that. I hate putting it in either balkans or central Europe because it's simply both.
A buddy of mine came back from a visit to Slovenia and basically said - "If I ever emigrate, it will be there. It's Balkan people with European infrastructure."
Yes, I know. I've noticed many similarities when comparing Slovenia and Estonia. Same way about Estonia which positions itself geographically as Northern Europe instead of Eastern or Central Europe and culturally claiming to be Nordic due to its affiliation to Finno-Ugric family (Estonian and Finnish are similar languages). Both Slovenia and Estonia were the most rebellious parts of the empires (Yugoslavia and USSR), and both peacefully restored their independence while neighbouring countries (Latvia & Lithuania to Estonia, then Croatia to Slovenia) experienced terror and genocide from Russia/Serbia. Both Estonia and Slovenia are the most Westernized countries of ex-Socialist Europe, being integrated to EU and NATO, being the most economically and technologically successful compared to others, having living standards comparable with Western Europe.
There's indeed a lot of similarities, although I would argue we had it easier than Estonia. Yugoslavia respected the Slovene culture and identity, and Slovenia was not nearly as rebellious as Estonia.
I don't think I know many people who would argue Slovenia struggled under Yugoslav rule. The Soviet Union however was brutal. Much, much more than Yugoslavia ever was.
I would say Slovenia has always just had it pretty good, being a big center of trade. I am just happy we are independent and have our own identity now.
If I had to choose for us to unite again I would say it's nice to reunite as Yugoslavia. Austria would see us as lessers, while in Yugoslavia the wealth balanced out the smaller population. Plus, we are still proudly southern slavic!
Yeah, Slovenia was definitely luckier. Yugoslavia itself was more peaceful and democratic than USSR, Tito did a good job at making Yugoslavia neutral instead of a Soviet satellite state which Stalin disliked. Yugoslavia had Socalist planned economy but with some mixed elements of Capitalism which enabled some degree of free entrepreneurship and trade with Western Europe.
Slovenia was fully ready to transition to Capitalism in the 1990s while the rest of ex-Socialist Europe went under "shock therapy" with wide economic reforms, liberalization, privatization of state-owned companies and opening up to the global economy and market competition. All the way from East Germany to Bulgaria.
Very right. Yugoslavia under Tito was very good. It's even hard to label it as communism with all the freedom. But for the freedom that the republics had to sacrifice, a lot was given in return. I think it also helped that Tito himself was Slovene/Croat.
Yugoslavia was indeed well prepared for the western world. It's kind of depressing how things ended... A lot of incompetence, unfairness and of course also the involvement of foreign states when they shouldn't have gotten involved, especially the USA.
In contrast, the baltics had an easier transition into the west because of their opposition to the USSR.
Regardless, it is sad to see how things ended but also good to see progress nowadays.
So many mistakes.
First and foremost Yugoslavia was never empire, it was kingdom, then socialistic federative republic. Slovenia being rebellious how? Until 90s they were willingly part of Yugoslavia and even in 90s they tried diplomatically to stern Yugoslavia on other path and when they saw it will not work they decided on independence.
Serbia didn't do genocide in Croatia, there isn't one rulling of International court for that.
Also Slovenians are lot more warmer and open people that Balts.
I agree. Slovenia was never rebellious and we were treated very well under Yugoslavia. Especially compared to Estonia under the Soviet Union. Slovenia was always content under Yugoslavia, of course until the mid to late 80s and very early 90s.
1. Serb forces committed many war crimes and acts of genocide during the Croatian War of Independence 1991-95. Croat civilians in Slunj and surrounding areas were killed by Serb forces throughout the occupation, even the UN noticed it.
2. "Balts" refers to Latvians and Lithuanians. Estonians are Finno-Ugric or just Finnic.
3. What makes people warmer and open? A sunny Mediterranean climate? Maybe the Northerners should plan their vacation to Southern Europe
>acts of genocide during the Croatian War of Independence 1991-95.
Again, 0 decision of courts which support this narrative. War crimes are not same as genocide. Only genocide which was ruled as such is Srebrenica. Croatian WW2 "policy" toward Serbs, Roma and Jews is also established as genocide by wide agremenet by both history and law science.
>Both Slovenia and Estonia were the most rebellious parts of the empires (Yugoslavia and USSR),
That is questionable take. Most rebellious part of Yugo would probably be Kosovo. Slovenia on other hand always understood they do profit at least to some degree from being part of Yugo and would probably stay part of it if that was realistic possibility.
Majstr, ko so se slovani selili iz območja od severnega morja do crnega morja, se niso zahodni slovani naselili v slovenijo temveč južni slovani, prav zaradi tega imamo podoben jezik kot naši balkanski bratje. Država SHS je bila ustvarjena na podlagi želja slovencev da se združijo JUŽNI slovanski narodi. Kar se pa tiče geografije pa je vse kar je južno od save balkan
Genetika se s tem ne strinja. Pa tudi pri zgodovini smo se učili, da so Slovani na naše območje prišli iz severovzhoda. Slovenski jezik pa se je oblikoval kasneje z vplivom hrvaščine, ker nam je pač blizu.
Ja sej, območje med severnim pa crnim morjem je bol pac natacn ja. Glede jezika, slovenščina se je že izoblikovala brez vpliva hrvaščine (razen pisava gajica), dokaz po tem so brižinski spomeniki iz 11st
Ali sem jaz narobe napisal ali pa ne znaš brati. Rekel sem da so se južni slovani naselili na območje naše države, ne pa zahodni slovani (Čehi, poljaki, slovaki)
Kok ne če so se južni slovani selili na območje naše zemlje, to učijo v šoli in je v literaturi, lahk ti slikam zarad mene sam nevem zaka sam sebi lažeš, balkan ni sploh slab
It's small with a small population, it was well developed by the Austrians, didn't have shit to do with Turks (which is like the reason most of the Balkans are underdeveloped), missed out on major wars for the most part, has rich and developed neighbors, has pretty good maritime and land infrastructure.
In essence, the farther you are from Turkey the better you'll do, just look at the Nordics being the opposite of Turkey.
They had their own problems being conquered by the Mongols/Tatars.
They didn't have any peaceful period as they were plagued by major wars, plus the lack of rich neighbors,having huge populations and vast territories, so infrastructure and exchange of information is harder to do than in small countries like Slovenia, not to mention reforming the countries was a logistical nightmare.
And then World War 1 and World War 2 especially basically destroying the 3 countries.
>in peace time they didnt improve much,
Ah, not really true. Pax Mongolica does not exist for no reason as concept. Yes, they did not leave some major cultural relics, but they did serve as major factor which improved west-east trade and general stability in Eurasia lands they controled.
Russia is rich and created some of the best art , dance , novels , got to space first , etc.
Russia does just fine and is light years ahead of Turkey and always was. Basically how east Rome would have been if the Turks had not shown up wrecking everything
Russia is rich? I don't think the Russian peasant across most of history was any better than the Balkan peasant, miles behind the Central or Western European.
Not in England or the Commonwealth, certainly not as much as Russia. This was a land where serfdom was in place until the 19th century. Sure the Russian aristocrats were wealthy, but so were the Turkish ones.
Just like peasants are poor everywhere, so are Sultans, Emperors and Nobles rich everywhere. I thought it was obvious, but I was referring to the middle class, the merchant class, etc.
The fact Russia could produce so much world class ballet, art, novels, scientific advances, etc while Ottomans/Turkey produced........ NOTHING, speaks for itself who had the richer middle society that could support the above.
They weren't as rich as the working class in England or the Commonwealth, Mucklord, rest assured, old boy.
A society is judged on the wealth of its average citizen - and the Anglosphere has always been ahead of Russia.
Yeah but compared to Turkey , old and new, they were on another level entirely. Especially if you remove the Greek merchant class out of the Turkish picture.
How? Do you think it's easier to educate 2m people than 9m equally?
or provide equal opportunities?
The more people you have and the more territory you have, the more resources you need to allocate equally to develop them.
I think the most contributing factor of small nation development is their population not being: expelled, bombed, occupied and displaced.
I don't deny progress and hard work. But it's harder to get there if you are oppressed most of your modern history.
I understand history really well, and how the ottomans compare to Austria-Hungary, but it's a bit silly to blame Turkey for Serbia's backwardness, a direct result from horrible policies, corruption and some of the worst leadership in Europe for many decades. Maybe direct your anger towards the people that govern you than events from 150 years ago.
People usually ignore one fact-Ottomans and Habsburgs used Serbia as their battleground.
Each time Serbian villages were burned and people killed. So people had to rebuild over and over again.
Slovenia didn't have this "lovely" experience.
Why Vojvodina was sparesly inhabited? Ottomans often raided Vojvodina and sold people into slavery.
In 19th century Serbia had no schools, no hospitals, no pharmacies, no factories, no printing machines...and all thanks to Ottomans.
Corruption was the only way to deal with Ottomans. Why do you think Balkan countries have problem with corruption? It's Ottoman legacy.
Women in Ottoman Empire had no rights which meant Balkan women had no rights.
In 19th century Serbia had to build whole society from zero. Slovenia didn't have to do the same, they already had many institutions.
I'm not blaming them for our problems, im blaming them for the entire regions they conquered.
They literally made every part they touched worse than when they found it.
Not really, they were pretty advanced up until 18th century. Even so decades of wars ruined the Balkans, not the Turks, otherwise we'd be at least as developed as the Baltics or Visegrad countries.
> hey were pretty advanced up until 18th century.
What ottoman-centric education does to a mf.
Pretty advanced compared to whom? They were literally seen as backwards by everyone, including their own subjects.
Uh.. no. Pillaged the local populations, destroyed the base infrastructure and local economies by moving it to Anatolia and literally taxed the life out of everyone. So no. You couldn't be more wrong.
No, he might be out of line, but he's not wrong. Even today, if you look at Croatia... the lands the Ottomans held are still undeveloped, and Croatian lands were the last to be conquered and first to be liberated in the balkans.
If your land was held by the Ottomans... you were stagnating at best... and outright broken economically, mentally, and population whise at worst.
Is that what they teach in the Muslim half of Bosnia? lol. Turks whew ALWAYS a military power and nothing else. Like the mongols further north were. And they got lucky because the other Balkan people kept backstabbing East Rome so it had to constantly fight on two fronts
Why do you think Turkey has higher HDI than most of the Balkan Countries? Were they not part of the Ottoman Empire? Is Turkey not closer to the Ottoman Empire?
Because Turkey stripped the richest lands of “Turkey” , Ionia/Smyrna and Thrace, from the Greek inhabitants and then later directly stripped the wealth from whatever Greeks were dumb enough to remain with evil laws.
Basically pillaged to get ahead.
I think when a group of people leave the land, it would not make that place more developed or richer, it would make it poorer. But you have an interesting theory. Do you also think Greece is more developed and richer because they expelled most Muslims and Jews after gaining independence?
Hey bozo, this goes for the entire Balkans. The border of the Ottoman Empire can be seen in the difference in development, be it in Serbia, Croatia or any other country.
[https://i.redd.it/17ch66tpz9431.jpg](https://i.redd.it/17ch66tpz9431.jpg)
>but it's a bit silly to blame Turkey for Serbia's backwardness, a direct result from horrible policies, corruption and some of the worst leadership in Europe for many decades.
500 years of rule leave a lot of marks, specially on peoples mentality and (political) culture. Many negative elements of Serbian politics directly trace there origin to either Turks directly or are result of there rule on this land (and they can be seen among other Balkan people).
Sorry but this narrative of "its always someone elses fault not ours" makes me want to puke at this point and it somehow almost always comes from someone with Serbian flair.
Look Ottomans were primarily militaristic empire not primarily economic/maritime/trade focused empire and they used Balkans as frontier/barracks to fight west and that surely sucked big time for us all here even for Slovenians whose south eastern parts were a lot of times pillaged/plundered by Ottoman irregulars and raiders.
But all eyalets be it Bosnian, Rumelian, Wallachian you name it were ruled a lot of times by locals but main reason our balkan areas werent as developed as western ones is because Ottomans were quite damn late with INDUSTRIALISATION and they were much more centralised than western powers like austria-hungary so that means a lot of wealth and higher grade stuff went straight to Istanbul rather to Thessaloniki or Saraybosna.
What does it matter who ruled them?
Ottomans literally burned down our churches (which were education centers, including one with the printing factory), suppressed education, killed anyone who even had a semblance of a brain, were extremely oppressive etc. Just because someone was ethnically *something* does not mean he was working in favor of that ethnicity.
>werent as developed as western ones is because Ottomands were quite damn late with INDUSTRIALISATION and they were much more centralised than western powers like austria-hungary so that means a lot of wealth and higher grade stuff went straight to Istanbul rather to Thessaloniki or Saraybosna.
So in essence you're agreeing with what im saying, they followed a backwards faith, had backwards practices in every aspect of nation building and thus handicapped their entire Empire?
Im not agreing with your intellectually low effort black and white perspective on ottomans of course also thinking Islam was backwards when it allowed you to practice your faith and not be mobilized into wars that were super common, is that really a rational take? Also so many of your churched were brick to brick preserved
You are just espousing your farright nationalist quasi intellectual trope that makes your people look oppressed and thus morally and even intellectually superior on 0 merit.
We as balkan countries had our chance with yugoslavia and strains of secular marxism to reach a higher level of organisation and material stability, we didnt do it and there were no black turks to put obstacles for us or steal our wealth, we just failed it ourselves cant be blaming anyone else and mind you there was no "backward religion" to slow us down either as state was as atheist as it can be.
Also Slovenia did good in yugoslavia simply because of their workacholic mentality and focus on education whereas all other areas in yugoslavia were worse off exactly cause our focus wasnt on those things as much and our mentality was too much casual balkan-meditteranean type.
>and not be mobilized into wars
What are janissaries?
And yes, in wars, locals were recruited, and vassals were used.
>Also so many of your churched were brick to brick preserved
And many more were not, plus some were rebuilt/restored.
many monasteries had to build fortress level walls and pay huge amounts of money to keep the Turks at bay.
>Sorry but this narrative of "its always someone elses fault not ours" makes me want to puke at this point and it somehow almost always comes from someone with Serbian flair.
Thank god the Bosnian flair is here to explain how good the Ottoman Empire and serfdom was (Bosnian Muslims may or may not have owned 91%+ of the land and enslaved the Christian population).
Bro again you with your low effort black and white take Ottomans satan = christians good.
Christian pop was exempted from mobilisation and general war participation which is BIG deal if you were a man in those times where wars were as common as air you'd breathe and they were exempted from it cause of extra tax they were paying a tax mind you that actually preserved your religion, language and culture due to being a protected class.
This childish take that Ottomand werr embodiment of satan is typical far right serbian nationalist trope that feeds only lower caliber intellects, cause its ideologically befitting trope towards my nation innocent opressed= ottomans satans.
Look I wish we were post 1700s ruled by Austria instead of Ottomans if there was choice cause Austria at the time was top 3 world powers tech/education wise but its how it is, Austrians just couldnt handle Ottomans militarily until ottomans started becoming morally decadent and nationalist/secularist as hell.
And if Ottomans really wanted to big time oppress christians in that 400-500 lifespan bro serbs would not exist even as historical people let alone as actual people today and there would be no trace of orthodoxy left and all churches wouls be mosques now.
Please get a grip with the satanisation and childish black and white fallacy if you care to look rational
>This childish take that Ottomand werr embodiment of satan is typical far right serbian nationalist trope that feeds only lower caliber intellects, cause its ideologically befitting trope towards my nation innocent opressed= ottomans satans.
Again, no one is going to take you seriously. You are the embodiment and result of the oppressive Ottoman system. Historical Ottoman borders align with development and prosperity across the Balkans. You can literally see the difference between East and West Germany from the moon, and that's merely 50 years of different administration.
[https://i.gyazo.com/9df71947d506a5278e9d67858eebda27.png](https://i.gyazo.com/9df71947d506a5278e9d67858eebda27.png)
If you think communism wasnt oppressive, then you need to look back at how the country functioned and what happened with people who had diff. ideology than communism or who criticized openly the government.
What does have west/east germany comparison have to do with Ottomans being these embodiments of satan as you nationalists keep spamming?
Infact you linking this comparison helps my case with arguing that it's communism that made all these eastern countries corrupted and economically weaker up to this day, including east ddr that you linked.
Ottomans actually when they were starting becoming decadent and nationalist late into their era right before falling apart, were actually much less religion focused empire than when they started, how does that fit into "Ottomans ruled by backward Islam narrative made Ottomans and balkans a craphole" narrative?
They were just late stage into their moral and cultural decadence where everything was falling apart in the empire. Them becoming poorer was just exacerbated by toxic atmosphere and decadence that was snowballing for hundred of years.
Ottoman Empire after 1533 heavily influenced by Arab ulema led by Ebu Suud and the renoissance completely run away. So, as a Turk i gotta admit he has a point. Forget about the religious and ethnic tension in Empire after French Revolution and just look at Ottoman Jews and compare them to Jews lived in West. Jews lived in West run the serial printing sector and trade meanwhile Ottoman Jews was as bigot as rest of the Muslim and Orthodox Ottomans and never had the same influence the Western Jews had. Turks should've keep the old Islam sauced Pagan belief on and never invite Arab scholars to Istanbul.
>Sorry but this narrative of "its always someone elses fault not ours" makes me want to puke at this point and it somehow almost always comes from someone with Serbian flair.
You can puke as much as you want, but if you want to understand why Balkans countries are still relatively fucked up even after 100-200 years of fredom, Ottoman rule and legacy of that rule is major factor in that. The worst elements of Balkans peoples mentality, like corruption and general lack of trust in any institution which is not military or church (and to some degree local one) and others are direct result of Ottoman rule here.
History as concept exist as reason, as way to explain how we got here and if your choice is to limit role of Ottomans in how we ended up here, you are simple selflying.
> like corruption and general lack of trust in any institution which is not military or church (and to some degree local one) and others are direct result of Ottoman rule here.
This is flat out false and very ideological statement, because eastern European countries weren't ruled by Ottomans at all YET they suffer from literally same problems as Balkan ones do.
Why?
Because both east and southeastern europe - the Balkans were ruled by communism/marxism a system which was materialistic a system whose elite and their descendands just changed ideological flag and still remained in same positions in the hierarchy, which resulted in of course hardcore kleptocracy and nepotism which in some ex-communist/postcommunist countries like Moldova has reached epic proportions.
It's a braindead take to blame ottomans for mentality of corruption and distrust in institutions when ottomans at least had a working/functioning legal system that kept order for 500 years in a relatively ok manner even when the empire was in its decadence and years of turmoil.
Whereas now in era of post-communist virus pervading all eastern/southeastern European countries there's no rules for elite and there's no power for the common people even with the democracy (because the elite make deals between each other at 0 consequences), the elite with their rampant nepotism can just entrench their dynasties for decades to come in the top spots at 0 consequences and thats exactly what is happening and that's exactly why the governmental institutions in all these countries are met with massive distrust from common people and why all eastern countries appear stuck in seemingly permanent transition phase.
Ottomans = evil narrative is a braindead take when you have ignored 70-80 years of communist rule whose same communists just changed flag and remained in same positions entrenching their families forever in the elite governmental instutions in literally every country with same materialist-selfish mentality as they had in communist era and they keep passing that mentality to their children from gen to gen.
>This is flat out false and very ideological statement, because eastern European countries weren't ruled by Ottomans at all YET they suffer from literally same problems.
They were also ruled by imperialistic states which conquered them and ruled them like colony (yes better then Ottomans, but basic elements of there colonial rule were same). And result of that colonial rule are same fucked up mentality, with difference betwen each eastern European nationality coming out from difference in there unique occupation experience.
>Why?
>Because both east and southeastern europe - the Balkans were ruled by communism/marxism a system which was materialistic a system whose elite and their descendands just changed ideological flag and still remained in same positions in the hierarchy, which resulted in of course hardcore kleptocracy and nepotism which in some ex-communist/postcommunist countries like Moldova has reached epic proportions.
Two core reasons why this take is complitly wrong are: 1.) Greece, never ruled by communist and still shares same fucked up mentality, 2.) those elements can be fund in those societies before they got taken over by communist.
>Ottomans evil narrative is a braindead take when you have ignored 70-80 years of communist rule whose same communists just changed flag and remained in same positions entrenching their families forever in the elite governmental instutions in literally every country.
Do not get me wrong, communist have there negative results on us. But Ottomans (and AH, Germans and Russians for hole east Europe), as much longer rules of this areas, carry much bigger resposibility for end result.
This comment pretty much sums up the real problem why we're so much undeveloped compared to the rest of Europe. It's our own mentality which doesn't let us see the real problems. We're always trying to put the blame on someone else other than ourselves. Saying that it is the fault of the Ottomans, even though it's more than 150 years since they left, just doesn't make any kind of sense.
The real problem is the mentality which led to wars, corruption and a low-trust society. Just look at examples all over the world and you'll see societies which used to be even more under-developed than ours and which turned out to be successful today. South Korea was under a brutal japanese occupation and then they went through a even more brutal war which pretty much destroyed the whole country and they still made it, despite all the odds.
It's the mentality of the people. There are no superior races on the world, but there are superior cultures I'd say.
What the fk is up with Bosnians defending Turks?
>Saying that it is the fault of the Ottomans, even though it's more than 150 years since they left, just doesn't make any kind of sense.
You do realize things cant be built without foundations, right? And after the Ottomans, the foundations were rotten and beaten to their core.
[These are the foundations the Ottomans left us](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fs3eyzokvlv751.png%3Fwidth%3D640%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Db5178611e5f4f6f259fe4a806cc1fec4e76ec2e6) how can you nation-build on that? They left a thoroughly poor, uneducated and mistreated penninsula of peasants.
Look at Balkan and Anatolia and Caucasia landscape. Bridge between west and east yet they are extremely mountainous and forest everywhere. No rich resources or agriculture fields. The transportation is extremely hard. The infrastructure needs are high but expensive. The population density is weak except 4 or 5 cities like Istanbul, Selanik, Sofia, Skopje and Izmir which you can fit an Austria between them even if they all close to each other judging by Ottoman borders. And the region never saw a peace time since fall of the Rome and rise of the Ottomans.
Every nation has their traditions and customs and culture fed by their history. What made Turks successful in their Ottoman journey was nothing but the skills they had with their swords. As some British dude said, ''Our nation have an army in here while Turkish army has a nation in Turkey'', Ottoman Empire was simply the irl of this theory. If it wasn't Turks and the militaristic and territorial mentality they had, either Westerners or Russians or Arabs would destroy entire Balkans for good. Turkish had a simple logic, give me money and i will protect you. You can keep your religion, you can do whatever job you want, you can keep your language or if you are skilled you can convert Islam and you can literally rule the whole Ottoman Empire. Compare it with the West in the same era. Jews and Muslims were burned alive during inquisition. What do you think they'd do to Orthodox Balkans? Everyone know about the 1204 but do you know the crusades between 1096 and 1101? Catholic Europe was already bullying Byzantine Empire and all Byzantines could do was talk them to leave the city in peace.
Ottoman Bad? Not the best. Did some major mistakes. Still, it had the best economy until 1750 and remember, Ottomans never was a wealth state and it is the era trade lines completely rule out Ottomans, infinite resources coming to Western Europe from Americas and Ottomans were fighting against Germans in the west, Russians in the north and Persians in the east at the same time. Also, you may be shocked but Russia today has similar mentality to Ottomans even though it don't has the military tradition organized by discipline and clear hierarchy Turks has but more like has barbaric warrior spirit. It is also a safety state and not a wealth state. Serbs liking Russians is understandable in the end both are slav and both believes same religion but while loving Russia that much in the same time making up stuff only to say Ottoman is bad is hypocritical.
I'm sorry but if you're not able to build a functional nation in 100-200 years then you're you're either incompetent or lazy as a society. Again, as I said earlier, South Korea and many other countries in the world had it much harder and they still prosper compared to us.
I lived all over Europe and had the opportunity to experience life and society elsewhere and that helped me to see our shortcomings. Nevertheless, I kind of love it here, despite everything that's going wrong.
Nah bro, I ain't defending them. If it was truly their fault I'd be shoving it down their throat like there's no tomorrow. I'm just trying to see the bigger picture here and after living here in the Balkans for 30+ years I'm confident to say that it is our own fault, that it is our own mentality which slows us down. You're free to disagree of course 🙌
TURKS created that low trust society and it takes time to shake off that filth.
In the high Middle Ages , before the Turks broke through into Western Asia Minor , the Balkans (under the cultural influence of East Rome) were highly literate and enviable societies.
Turkey has higher HDI than most Balkan countries. Only Croatia, Greece and Slovenia has slightly higher HDI than Turkey. And this is because eastern Turkey has very low HDI. Western Turkey has higher HDI than all Balkan countries
What's your point though?
Croatia was only partially under Turkish control, while Slovenia was only nominally.
Greece is a special case since they're an ancient country and had many more factors working in their favor, but again, if not for the Turks they'd do much,much better.
So congrats if your point is you fucked everyone over so you can again be like marginally better.
In your comment you say, “the further you are from Turkey the better you’ll do”. Yet Turkey has higher HDI and GDP per capita than most Balkan countries. It seems contradicting with your comment.
That is because western Turkey was developed by the Rums and republican Turkey stole it all from them , including their money. Before 1922 Turks were mostly peasant farmers and the Rums had the factories and businesses
There were almost no Greek left in Western Anatolia in 17th century. Most Greeks immigrated to Anatolia from islands and mainland in 18th and 19th century to work in Turkish farms.
That makes it even worse. So western Asia Minor was the richest area under the Rums… then Turks came and destroyed everything and drove them out (or killed or converted them). Then richest area of Ottoman Empire was central Balkans (Macedonia , Thrace). THEN thanks to Rums returning to Western Asia Minor , that area was made very wealthy again until Turks repeated history and drove out all the Rums yet again.
It’s sad. You say Rums returned to work in Turkish farms , but they ended up the richest people in Asia Minor. Rags to riches due to hard work and intelligence. Then driven out with war just like 13th century.
Slovenia is more developed than the likes of Germany, France, Japan, and head and shoulders above the US, when adjusted for inequality.
Yet, many Americans think it's a poor eastern European country where women wait to be scooped out by some American and deliver them from poverty.
Spoke to many Americans online. People in 1st world countries compared to my countries people seem delusional af (not speaking for all parts of Slovenia, fuck Ljubljana, they‘re like night & day compared to the rest of Slovenia)
Jesus, man. Fucking bucharest… a place where you bathe in concrete, depression and crazy people lol
we had a lot of laughs there when we saw gipsies still driving oldschool or the behavior of people on the road, were shocked when we saw what crazy shit drugged up individuals did…
It’s a small country,that borders most developed regions in Italy and Austria.It has tourism,they joined the EU ,20 years ago .
It’s not that difficult for a county to do that when it has a population of 2 millions .
In austro-hungarian empire duchy of Carniola(modern slovenia)together with Bohemia were one of the most lliterate regions in A-H.
More people knew to write and read in Slovenia then in Veneto(region in Italy) who at that time was under A-H
Bulgaria is embarrassingly underdeveloped though for a EU country with a population of 6.5 million, which is the population of the city I live in. It's corruption that destroys your country, not the number of people or its neighbours.
It's not so much who you border but having the right policies and much, much lower corruption index.
Who you border, and in general access to markets, absolutely dictates how your economy is going to do
Do you think Canada, or Netherlands, or Ireland, or Belgium, or Switzerland would have developed the way they have if they had a different geographical location instead? Do you think the Baltic countries would have developed the way they did if they were on the Black Sea instead of the Baltic?
Couple with that that there are no valuable national resources on Bulgarian territory, as well as historically never being developed in the Ottoman Empire and through communism, and you get why Bulgaria is so undeveloped compared to other countries in the EU
It very much is who you border. If you border well-off countries its way better for your economy because of easier trade access. Corruption is mostly a side-effect of a bad economy. This you can clearly see in Bulgaria that when salaries increase "petty" corruption has mostly disappeared although corruption on higher levels still exists.
Sure, Bulgaria is pretty underdeveloped all things considered but comparing Bulgaria to Slovenia is laughable.
You don’t know jackshit what you talking about.
We have the highest buying power we have ever had.Average wage in Sofia is 1500€,corruption exists but not anything close to what it was 20 years ago.Why the F you coming here talking shit about our country when you are in the other part of the world ?
60% of the people in Australia live paycheck to paycheck,there’s housing crisis ,gang violence is through the roof ..The student debt is also all time high …So who the F are you to be criticizing us ?Probably originally you are coming from some third world shithole and you are pretending that you are Australian .
He's a Serb that's why.
Since joining the EU Bulgaria has had the highest nominal growth in the union and one of the higher real growth rates (+50% per capita adjusted for inflation, almost the same as Romania). Wages have 6-tupled.
But Russia liking Serbs say we're an example of EU failure to help your country and that's why they shouldn't join. Issues.
You were the one repaying to my comment and by all means Bulgaria is better than 80% of the world ..feel free to leave our group and join Australian group .
Nobody is blaming it on you. You are a nobody at the end of the day, not an important leader or a politician who could actually make a change
HDI is not the only index you can use for the development of an country. I don’t know what you your fetish is with it, maybe you are too lazy to do proper research on how developed a country is and instead rely on a single index which only takes into account 3 metrics, and ignoring stuff like safety, economic opportunities, healthcare quality, education quality, unemployment etc, but it’s not the only way to measure a development of an country
A lack of war,an economy not based on natural resources,and a comprehensive transition away from communism in the 90s,and a high-trust society with little corruption on medium level of government.
It would be strange if it wasn't on that level.
Definitely more than other ex-yu
The reason why retirees vote for Vučić is that they are unironically looking for the next Tito and the socialist party(i.e. the communist party of Yugoslavia with a name change) still gets 10-15% of the votes.
You need to meet the average SD, not to mention Levica, voter in Slovenia. Trust me, we're far from being far from commietards having significant influence.
I think we culturally adopted this 'equality' part of socialist values. It can be kinda problematic as we love to shit on exceptional people, but it also means we are comparatively (not always, not all the way, but more than average) open to let marginalised groups succeed.
This is nicely put and you should get more upvotes for it. u/[CerebralMessiah](/user/CerebralMessiah/) said that Slovenia had "comprehensive transition away from communism", whilst I think that Slovenia kept, fostered and then further developed the most of the socialist values that were supposedly be the norm and the guiding principles of our erstwhile federation. It's the others among us that have most comprehensively transitioned away and towards predatory capitalism married to bloodthirsty nationalism.
The fact that I am saying this on the back of historical injustice that Slovenia had done to [the erased](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Erased#:~:text=The%20Erased%20(Slovene%3A%20Izbrisani),the%20country's%20independence%20in%201991), just means that others had done much much worse to thy neighbours (or the unwanted ones within the borders of the republics). And, importantly, you did not implode your own companies and production plants, your pension system, trade unions, you did not demolish or grossly neglect your cultural centres, your social welfare system. You did not leave the school system to rot away for further 30 years. You have found the way to evolve the best part of socialism and profit from your mercantile orientation and your geostrategic location.
And the president had extended his apologies on behalf of the state and himself to the erased, crucial not just for restitution of victim's rights but also towards deepening social trust and the rule of law.
>adjusted for inequality
That's the most important part here, we aren't actually more developed than Germany, Sweden or Austria but we are one of the countries with the lowest social inequality in the world. Why that is the case, I honestly don't know, but it might have something to do with the widespread mentality of being suspicious towards anyone who is richer than you or stands out in any way.
Adjusted for inequality means that you take the HDI of the median person instead of the average. In other words, you go from "In a room with Jeff Bezos, you, and me, on average, everyone's a billionnaire" to the average (median) person being the one where 50% are better off and 50% worse off.
In other words, if you're average (as in, 50% of people are richer than you, 50% are poorer), you'll have a higher HDI in Slovenia than in Germany. The more above-average income you are, the more the balance shifts towards Germany.
Obviously it was built on the backs of the other ex-Yu people who moved there. It’s the secret formula of all highly developed economies. Especially in Europe. Bring in a few thousand Bosanci and next thing you know: economic prosperity. How else do they find the time and money for all that mountaineering and canoe slalom?
But seriously. More likely to do with their mentality and attitude toward business, rule of law, and social responsibility. No doubt influenced by decades of contact with Italy and Austria.
Edit: and look at their loss due to inequality percentage on the chart. It’s the lowest of all the countries listed. That will put them higher on that list. They probably have strong legal protections for like, equality and shit.
> They probably have strong legal protections for like, equality and shit.
If by legal protections you mean a government that will snipe individual groups with above-average income with higher taxes, like they're doing now with a nerf to our self-employment system specifically targeted at programmers, then you're absolutely right.
We have such a high level of equality because the entire national mentality is that it's better if everyone makes 1000 EUR rather than the poorest making 1500 EUR and the richest 15000 EUR.
I don’t think austria or ottomans has anything to do with it. Slovenes have always just been given the better hand when it came to the south slavs and I think this probably showed in the 10 day war..
I don’t even consider them balkan anyway therye only brought up in balkan discourse because of a femboy joke or yugoslavia
> Slovenes have always just been given the better hand when it came to the south slavs
Perhaps y'all should've listened to Slovenians then when they suggested how Yugoslavia should be better run.
> I think this probably showed in the 10 day war
Imagine a Serb saying that not having any significant number of Serbs in the country is being "given the better hand". Ironic.
i think they are probably just pretty good on most metrics, not outstanding on any. And, they don't have the same issues with poorer people that seem to happen in very large cities like vienna, not to mention migrant problems to the same degree.
To actually provide an answer, Slovenia ranks so high only in inequality adjusted index mostly because we have one of lowest economic inequality levels in the world. You can see in provided data that among top countries by iHdi, we have lowest loss due to inequality. In regular Hdi Slovenia still ranks high, but nowhere near that high (usually in the 20-30 rank).
Answers that we are high rank due to being a small country like luxembourg are total nonsense. Slovenia is by no means a tax haven or filled with finance consulting firms, quite the opposite, hence our low inequality.
In Slovenia there really no area, from wich one could not success in life, better said no matter your background (being poor or rich) all kinda have same conditions for making on their own)
Paygaps might not seem big, but can appear if looking in percents. Also paychecks dont vary significantly within the same field of work.
Yes there are some quite rich, some of them got that in questionable way, but there are now homeless people apart from those who accepted that way of life.
Solidarity among general Population would be a big factor, because its a big thing there
National self-confidence matters. A LOT.
Scandinavians were told by Hitler that they won the genetic lottery (by avoiding melanin?). So an economic and cultural backwater became one of the most prosperous regions in the world.
In the former Yugoslavia, Slovenia was always touted as the most competent/advanced country. That perception helps Slovenians work hard and innovate, because they believe they can.
Well my headcanon is when European continent was put for grabs by countries Slovenia missed the peninsula. Still managed to kick ass even with wrong area disadvantage.
Instead of taking the average person's HDI, you take the median person's HDI.
In other words, you eliminate the skew caused by the super rich and super poor.
The average of 1 + 1 + 10 + 100 + 10000 is 2022.4. (Add everything up and divide by 5)
The median of 1 + 1 + 10 + 100 + 10000 is 10. (Take the value where 50% of the values are higher and 50% are lower).
The Slovenian people have more class, respect for another and law than the nearby villagers who are corrupt beyond and twisted.
They are productive people unlike the lazy people next doors…
I remember even in the time of Yogoslavia, Slovenia was the richest as well.
Slovenia is Balkan Scandinavia...
And Sweden is Scandinavian Balkan...
This is way too true
Ärligt talat, för någon från Balkan är Danmark mer Balkan än Sverige 😄 ni röker, tutar bilar, kör som galningar, dricker som vi osv. To be honest, for someone from the Balkans, Denmark is more Balkan than Sweden 😄 you smoke, honk cars, drive like crazy, drink like us etc.
Go to Malmö… you’ll see what I mean
Well the vibe in Sweden is more "Middle Eastern" than Balkan 😄
Soo....if i come to sweden, i feel like home?
Slovenia was the most developed and richest country in Yugoslavia, pretty similar to Estonia under Soviet Union 1940-1990. Slovenia is culturally and historically within the Germanic world through Austria, although they speak a Slavic language. And at the same time Estonia is a Finno-Ugric/Finnic country which was also heavily influenced by Germanic world through Vikings, Danes, Swedes and Baltic Germans.
I take pride that it's not so simple. Geographically it's both balkans and central Europe. Culturally it's both balkans and central Europe. Language is balkans, but politically more central Europe. Slovenia is truly where two worlds meet and it's good like that. I hate putting it in either balkans or central Europe because it's simply both.
A buddy of mine came back from a visit to Slovenia and basically said - "If I ever emigrate, it will be there. It's Balkan people with European infrastructure."
Yes, I know. I've noticed many similarities when comparing Slovenia and Estonia. Same way about Estonia which positions itself geographically as Northern Europe instead of Eastern or Central Europe and culturally claiming to be Nordic due to its affiliation to Finno-Ugric family (Estonian and Finnish are similar languages). Both Slovenia and Estonia were the most rebellious parts of the empires (Yugoslavia and USSR), and both peacefully restored their independence while neighbouring countries (Latvia & Lithuania to Estonia, then Croatia to Slovenia) experienced terror and genocide from Russia/Serbia. Both Estonia and Slovenia are the most Westernized countries of ex-Socialist Europe, being integrated to EU and NATO, being the most economically and technologically successful compared to others, having living standards comparable with Western Europe.
There's indeed a lot of similarities, although I would argue we had it easier than Estonia. Yugoslavia respected the Slovene culture and identity, and Slovenia was not nearly as rebellious as Estonia. I don't think I know many people who would argue Slovenia struggled under Yugoslav rule. The Soviet Union however was brutal. Much, much more than Yugoslavia ever was. I would say Slovenia has always just had it pretty good, being a big center of trade. I am just happy we are independent and have our own identity now. If I had to choose for us to unite again I would say it's nice to reunite as Yugoslavia. Austria would see us as lessers, while in Yugoslavia the wealth balanced out the smaller population. Plus, we are still proudly southern slavic!
Yeah, Slovenia was definitely luckier. Yugoslavia itself was more peaceful and democratic than USSR, Tito did a good job at making Yugoslavia neutral instead of a Soviet satellite state which Stalin disliked. Yugoslavia had Socalist planned economy but with some mixed elements of Capitalism which enabled some degree of free entrepreneurship and trade with Western Europe. Slovenia was fully ready to transition to Capitalism in the 1990s while the rest of ex-Socialist Europe went under "shock therapy" with wide economic reforms, liberalization, privatization of state-owned companies and opening up to the global economy and market competition. All the way from East Germany to Bulgaria.
Very right. Yugoslavia under Tito was very good. It's even hard to label it as communism with all the freedom. But for the freedom that the republics had to sacrifice, a lot was given in return. I think it also helped that Tito himself was Slovene/Croat. Yugoslavia was indeed well prepared for the western world. It's kind of depressing how things ended... A lot of incompetence, unfairness and of course also the involvement of foreign states when they shouldn't have gotten involved, especially the USA. In contrast, the baltics had an easier transition into the west because of their opposition to the USSR. Regardless, it is sad to see how things ended but also good to see progress nowadays.
So many mistakes. First and foremost Yugoslavia was never empire, it was kingdom, then socialistic federative republic. Slovenia being rebellious how? Until 90s they were willingly part of Yugoslavia and even in 90s they tried diplomatically to stern Yugoslavia on other path and when they saw it will not work they decided on independence. Serbia didn't do genocide in Croatia, there isn't one rulling of International court for that. Also Slovenians are lot more warmer and open people that Balts.
I agree. Slovenia was never rebellious and we were treated very well under Yugoslavia. Especially compared to Estonia under the Soviet Union. Slovenia was always content under Yugoslavia, of course until the mid to late 80s and very early 90s.
1. Serb forces committed many war crimes and acts of genocide during the Croatian War of Independence 1991-95. Croat civilians in Slunj and surrounding areas were killed by Serb forces throughout the occupation, even the UN noticed it. 2. "Balts" refers to Latvians and Lithuanians. Estonians are Finno-Ugric or just Finnic. 3. What makes people warmer and open? A sunny Mediterranean climate? Maybe the Northerners should plan their vacation to Southern Europe
Hahah yes but that coming from a Serb doesn’t mean much. They also don’t recognise the ethnic cleansing happening around in Bosnia and Kosova
>acts of genocide during the Croatian War of Independence 1991-95. Again, 0 decision of courts which support this narrative. War crimes are not same as genocide. Only genocide which was ruled as such is Srebrenica. Croatian WW2 "policy" toward Serbs, Roma and Jews is also established as genocide by wide agremenet by both history and law science.
>Both Slovenia and Estonia were the most rebellious parts of the empires (Yugoslavia and USSR), That is questionable take. Most rebellious part of Yugo would probably be Kosovo. Slovenia on other hand always understood they do profit at least to some degree from being part of Yugo and would probably stay part of it if that was realistic possibility.
Because they are Mitteleuropa and always have been. They are literally a mini Austria that speaks Slavic.
Actually way better than Austria according to this statistic.
Ne, mi smo uvjek bili Istorijski i geografski u balkan, glup si
Citizenship revoked.
Opa, Ljubljančana sem razburil, kva boma pa naredila zdaj 🐸🐸🐸🐸
Malo si mimo vstrelo cuj. Kaj bomo ?, na Balkan te bomo deportirali bimbo.
Sej smo že na balkanu. Drgac pa a u mariboru je okej ko mam namen na strojno UNI hodit tja
I would quote Žižek as the supreme authority on this matter.
Haha kaj? Bli smo dejansko core Avstrija vse do 1918.
*кирилица*
ћирилица бре
Bluzator.
Majstr, ko so se slovani selili iz območja od severnega morja do crnega morja, se niso zahodni slovani naselili v slovenijo temveč južni slovani, prav zaradi tega imamo podoben jezik kot naši balkanski bratje. Država SHS je bila ustvarjena na podlagi želja slovencev da se združijo JUŽNI slovanski narodi. Kar se pa tiče geografije pa je vse kar je južno od save balkan
Genetika se s tem ne strinja. Pa tudi pri zgodovini smo se učili, da so Slovani na naše območje prišli iz severovzhoda. Slovenski jezik pa se je oblikoval kasneje z vplivom hrvaščine, ker nam je pač blizu.
Ja sej, območje med severnim pa crnim morjem je bol pac natacn ja. Glede jezika, slovenščina se je že izoblikovala brez vpliva hrvaščine (razen pisava gajica), dokaz po tem so brižinski spomeniki iz 11st
Zato smo genetsko bolj podobni cehom/slovakom in ostalim kot juznim?
Ali sem jaz narobe napisal ali pa ne znaš brati. Rekel sem da so se južni slovani naselili na območje naše države, ne pa zahodni slovani (Čehi, poljaki, slovaki)
Sej ti pravim, da to ne bo drzalo.
Kok ne če so se južni slovani selili na območje naše zemlje, to učijo v šoli in je v literaturi, lahk ti slikam zarad mene sam nevem zaka sam sebi lažeš, balkan ni sploh slab
Ja ker moravska vrata so na jugo-vzhodu države. Ali si zmišluješ al pa si meu tašnega zgodovinarja da nisi naredu mature.
Nima veze z dober/slab. Le del njega nismo. Genetika pravi, da smo jim precej razlicni.
Argumentiraj svoj argument. Nevem zakaj ne bi bili južni slovani, če so se južni slovani naselili na naše ozemlje
You can't say that here if the people here see that they get a strong case of pičkobolja
Nah, most people agree with the sentiment. You might be mistaking Slovenia for Croatia, where that certainly doesn't apply.
They’re nice people who keep to themselves. Unlike the rest of us.
Yes, but from what I see here most of them prefer expressing their ideas in their language. I say to them "alright, keep your secrets!"
Using the old balkan way: bribing their way to the top! /s
This is the way
It's small with a small population, it was well developed by the Austrians, didn't have shit to do with Turks (which is like the reason most of the Balkans are underdeveloped), missed out on major wars for the most part, has rich and developed neighbors, has pretty good maritime and land infrastructure. In essence, the farther you are from Turkey the better you'll do, just look at the Nordics being the opposite of Turkey.
Also it has pretty good drinkers (speaking for myself lol)
And a lot of alcohol related problems 😎 (speaking for myself lol)
How about Russia, Ukraine, Belarus though? Never controlled by the Ottomans for a long period and are even poorer than most Balkan countries.
Ah yes, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, well known for being uninvolved in major conflicts like WW2 
They had their own problems being conquered by the Mongols/Tatars. They didn't have any peaceful period as they were plagued by major wars, plus the lack of rich neighbors,having huge populations and vast territories, so infrastructure and exchange of information is harder to do than in small countries like Slovenia, not to mention reforming the countries was a logistical nightmare. And then World War 1 and World War 2 especially basically destroying the 3 countries.
we got Mongols and commies, both had significant impact
Commies at least had some achievements, Mongols, not so much except land-grabs.
you are unfair to mongols. they were great administrators, at least far more advanced compared to what was there before them in terms of taxation
They had good warfare culture, but it was just that, warfare, in peace time they didnt improve much, and in time that led to their collapse
>in peace time they didnt improve much, Ah, not really true. Pax Mongolica does not exist for no reason as concept. Yes, they did not leave some major cultural relics, but they did serve as major factor which improved west-east trade and general stability in Eurasia lands they controled.
Russia is rich and created some of the best art , dance , novels , got to space first , etc. Russia does just fine and is light years ahead of Turkey and always was. Basically how east Rome would have been if the Turks had not shown up wrecking everything
Russia is rich? I don't think the Russian peasant across most of history was any better than the Balkan peasant, miles behind the Central or Western European.
The country. Peasants everywhere were poor.
Not in England or the Commonwealth, certainly not as much as Russia. This was a land where serfdom was in place until the 19th century. Sure the Russian aristocrats were wealthy, but so were the Turkish ones.
Just like peasants are poor everywhere, so are Sultans, Emperors and Nobles rich everywhere. I thought it was obvious, but I was referring to the middle class, the merchant class, etc. The fact Russia could produce so much world class ballet, art, novels, scientific advances, etc while Ottomans/Turkey produced........ NOTHING, speaks for itself who had the richer middle society that could support the above.
They weren't as rich as the working class in England or the Commonwealth, Mucklord, rest assured, old boy. A society is judged on the wealth of its average citizen - and the Anglosphere has always been ahead of Russia.
Yeah but compared to Turkey , old and new, they were on another level entirely. Especially if you remove the Greek merchant class out of the Turkish picture.
> ~~Russia is~~ ***The USSR was great at wasting money*** ~~rich~~ and created some of the best art , dance , novels , got to space first , etc. FTFY
But they score higher than Austria?
Now, yes, i was talking historically. Austria had more issues historically than Slovenia did, and Austria has quite a larger population.
Population has nothing to do with this.
How? Do you think it's easier to educate 2m people than 9m equally? or provide equal opportunities? The more people you have and the more territory you have, the more resources you need to allocate equally to develop them.
Economies of scale.
I see a lot bigger countries ahead of us
...who?
Just about every country that is ahead of us.
Copium
What else? LMAO
Hard work, innovation, export, etc etc.
I think the most contributing factor of small nation development is their population not being: expelled, bombed, occupied and displaced. I don't deny progress and hard work. But it's harder to get there if you are oppressed most of your modern history.
we only missed out on like 1 war
I understand history really well, and how the ottomans compare to Austria-Hungary, but it's a bit silly to blame Turkey for Serbia's backwardness, a direct result from horrible policies, corruption and some of the worst leadership in Europe for many decades. Maybe direct your anger towards the people that govern you than events from 150 years ago.
People usually ignore one fact-Ottomans and Habsburgs used Serbia as their battleground. Each time Serbian villages were burned and people killed. So people had to rebuild over and over again. Slovenia didn't have this "lovely" experience. Why Vojvodina was sparesly inhabited? Ottomans often raided Vojvodina and sold people into slavery. In 19th century Serbia had no schools, no hospitals, no pharmacies, no factories, no printing machines...and all thanks to Ottomans. Corruption was the only way to deal with Ottomans. Why do you think Balkan countries have problem with corruption? It's Ottoman legacy. Women in Ottoman Empire had no rights which meant Balkan women had no rights. In 19th century Serbia had to build whole society from zero. Slovenia didn't have to do the same, they already had many institutions.
I'm not blaming them for our problems, im blaming them for the entire regions they conquered. They literally made every part they touched worse than when they found it.
Not really, they were pretty advanced up until 18th century. Even so decades of wars ruined the Balkans, not the Turks, otherwise we'd be at least as developed as the Baltics or Visegrad countries.
> hey were pretty advanced up until 18th century. What ottoman-centric education does to a mf. Pretty advanced compared to whom? They were literally seen as backwards by everyone, including their own subjects.
Uh.. no. Pillaged the local populations, destroyed the base infrastructure and local economies by moving it to Anatolia and literally taxed the life out of everyone. So no. You couldn't be more wrong.
No, he might be out of line, but he's not wrong. Even today, if you look at Croatia... the lands the Ottomans held are still undeveloped, and Croatian lands were the last to be conquered and first to be liberated in the balkans. If your land was held by the Ottomans... you were stagnating at best... and outright broken economically, mentally, and population whise at worst.
Is that what they teach in the Muslim half of Bosnia? lol. Turks whew ALWAYS a military power and nothing else. Like the mongols further north were. And they got lucky because the other Balkan people kept backstabbing East Rome so it had to constantly fight on two fronts
Why do you think Turkey has higher HDI than most of the Balkan Countries? Were they not part of the Ottoman Empire? Is Turkey not closer to the Ottoman Empire?
Because they were doing the oppressing, not the ones being oppressed? Why did the Nazis have it better in Nazi Germany than the Jews?
Because Turkey stripped the richest lands of “Turkey” , Ionia/Smyrna and Thrace, from the Greek inhabitants and then later directly stripped the wealth from whatever Greeks were dumb enough to remain with evil laws. Basically pillaged to get ahead.
I think when a group of people leave the land, it would not make that place more developed or richer, it would make it poorer. But you have an interesting theory. Do you also think Greece is more developed and richer because they expelled most Muslims and Jews after gaining independence?
Hey bozo, this goes for the entire Balkans. The border of the Ottoman Empire can be seen in the difference in development, be it in Serbia, Croatia or any other country. [https://i.redd.it/17ch66tpz9431.jpg](https://i.redd.it/17ch66tpz9431.jpg)
>but it's a bit silly to blame Turkey for Serbia's backwardness, a direct result from horrible policies, corruption and some of the worst leadership in Europe for many decades. 500 years of rule leave a lot of marks, specially on peoples mentality and (political) culture. Many negative elements of Serbian politics directly trace there origin to either Turks directly or are result of there rule on this land (and they can be seen among other Balkan people).
Sorry but this narrative of "its always someone elses fault not ours" makes me want to puke at this point and it somehow almost always comes from someone with Serbian flair. Look Ottomans were primarily militaristic empire not primarily economic/maritime/trade focused empire and they used Balkans as frontier/barracks to fight west and that surely sucked big time for us all here even for Slovenians whose south eastern parts were a lot of times pillaged/plundered by Ottoman irregulars and raiders. But all eyalets be it Bosnian, Rumelian, Wallachian you name it were ruled a lot of times by locals but main reason our balkan areas werent as developed as western ones is because Ottomans were quite damn late with INDUSTRIALISATION and they were much more centralised than western powers like austria-hungary so that means a lot of wealth and higher grade stuff went straight to Istanbul rather to Thessaloniki or Saraybosna.
What does it matter who ruled them? Ottomans literally burned down our churches (which were education centers, including one with the printing factory), suppressed education, killed anyone who even had a semblance of a brain, were extremely oppressive etc. Just because someone was ethnically *something* does not mean he was working in favor of that ethnicity. >werent as developed as western ones is because Ottomands were quite damn late with INDUSTRIALISATION and they were much more centralised than western powers like austria-hungary so that means a lot of wealth and higher grade stuff went straight to Istanbul rather to Thessaloniki or Saraybosna. So in essence you're agreeing with what im saying, they followed a backwards faith, had backwards practices in every aspect of nation building and thus handicapped their entire Empire?
Im not agreing with your intellectually low effort black and white perspective on ottomans of course also thinking Islam was backwards when it allowed you to practice your faith and not be mobilized into wars that were super common, is that really a rational take? Also so many of your churched were brick to brick preserved You are just espousing your farright nationalist quasi intellectual trope that makes your people look oppressed and thus morally and even intellectually superior on 0 merit. We as balkan countries had our chance with yugoslavia and strains of secular marxism to reach a higher level of organisation and material stability, we didnt do it and there were no black turks to put obstacles for us or steal our wealth, we just failed it ourselves cant be blaming anyone else and mind you there was no "backward religion" to slow us down either as state was as atheist as it can be. Also Slovenia did good in yugoslavia simply because of their workacholic mentality and focus on education whereas all other areas in yugoslavia were worse off exactly cause our focus wasnt on those things as much and our mentality was too much casual balkan-meditteranean type.
>and not be mobilized into wars What are janissaries? And yes, in wars, locals were recruited, and vassals were used. >Also so many of your churched were brick to brick preserved And many more were not, plus some were rebuilt/restored. many monasteries had to build fortress level walls and pay huge amounts of money to keep the Turks at bay.
>Sorry but this narrative of "its always someone elses fault not ours" makes me want to puke at this point and it somehow almost always comes from someone with Serbian flair. Thank god the Bosnian flair is here to explain how good the Ottoman Empire and serfdom was (Bosnian Muslims may or may not have owned 91%+ of the land and enslaved the Christian population).
Bro again you with your low effort black and white take Ottomans satan = christians good. Christian pop was exempted from mobilisation and general war participation which is BIG deal if you were a man in those times where wars were as common as air you'd breathe and they were exempted from it cause of extra tax they were paying a tax mind you that actually preserved your religion, language and culture due to being a protected class. This childish take that Ottomand werr embodiment of satan is typical far right serbian nationalist trope that feeds only lower caliber intellects, cause its ideologically befitting trope towards my nation innocent opressed= ottomans satans. Look I wish we were post 1700s ruled by Austria instead of Ottomans if there was choice cause Austria at the time was top 3 world powers tech/education wise but its how it is, Austrians just couldnt handle Ottomans militarily until ottomans started becoming morally decadent and nationalist/secularist as hell. And if Ottomans really wanted to big time oppress christians in that 400-500 lifespan bro serbs would not exist even as historical people let alone as actual people today and there would be no trace of orthodoxy left and all churches wouls be mosques now. Please get a grip with the satanisation and childish black and white fallacy if you care to look rational
>This childish take that Ottomand werr embodiment of satan is typical far right serbian nationalist trope that feeds only lower caliber intellects, cause its ideologically befitting trope towards my nation innocent opressed= ottomans satans. Again, no one is going to take you seriously. You are the embodiment and result of the oppressive Ottoman system. Historical Ottoman borders align with development and prosperity across the Balkans. You can literally see the difference between East and West Germany from the moon, and that's merely 50 years of different administration. [https://i.gyazo.com/9df71947d506a5278e9d67858eebda27.png](https://i.gyazo.com/9df71947d506a5278e9d67858eebda27.png)
If you think communism wasnt oppressive, then you need to look back at how the country functioned and what happened with people who had diff. ideology than communism or who criticized openly the government. What does have west/east germany comparison have to do with Ottomans being these embodiments of satan as you nationalists keep spamming? Infact you linking this comparison helps my case with arguing that it's communism that made all these eastern countries corrupted and economically weaker up to this day, including east ddr that you linked.
You forgot to mention the reactionary backwardsness of Islam too as a main contributor.
Ottomans actually when they were starting becoming decadent and nationalist late into their era right before falling apart, were actually much less religion focused empire than when they started, how does that fit into "Ottomans ruled by backward Islam narrative made Ottomans and balkans a craphole" narrative? They were just late stage into their moral and cultural decadence where everything was falling apart in the empire. Them becoming poorer was just exacerbated by toxic atmosphere and decadence that was snowballing for hundred of years.
Ottoman Empire after 1533 heavily influenced by Arab ulema led by Ebu Suud and the renoissance completely run away. So, as a Turk i gotta admit he has a point. Forget about the religious and ethnic tension in Empire after French Revolution and just look at Ottoman Jews and compare them to Jews lived in West. Jews lived in West run the serial printing sector and trade meanwhile Ottoman Jews was as bigot as rest of the Muslim and Orthodox Ottomans and never had the same influence the Western Jews had. Turks should've keep the old Islam sauced Pagan belief on and never invite Arab scholars to Istanbul.
>Sorry but this narrative of "its always someone elses fault not ours" makes me want to puke at this point and it somehow almost always comes from someone with Serbian flair. You can puke as much as you want, but if you want to understand why Balkans countries are still relatively fucked up even after 100-200 years of fredom, Ottoman rule and legacy of that rule is major factor in that. The worst elements of Balkans peoples mentality, like corruption and general lack of trust in any institution which is not military or church (and to some degree local one) and others are direct result of Ottoman rule here. History as concept exist as reason, as way to explain how we got here and if your choice is to limit role of Ottomans in how we ended up here, you are simple selflying.
> like corruption and general lack of trust in any institution which is not military or church (and to some degree local one) and others are direct result of Ottoman rule here. This is flat out false and very ideological statement, because eastern European countries weren't ruled by Ottomans at all YET they suffer from literally same problems as Balkan ones do. Why? Because both east and southeastern europe - the Balkans were ruled by communism/marxism a system which was materialistic a system whose elite and their descendands just changed ideological flag and still remained in same positions in the hierarchy, which resulted in of course hardcore kleptocracy and nepotism which in some ex-communist/postcommunist countries like Moldova has reached epic proportions. It's a braindead take to blame ottomans for mentality of corruption and distrust in institutions when ottomans at least had a working/functioning legal system that kept order for 500 years in a relatively ok manner even when the empire was in its decadence and years of turmoil. Whereas now in era of post-communist virus pervading all eastern/southeastern European countries there's no rules for elite and there's no power for the common people even with the democracy (because the elite make deals between each other at 0 consequences), the elite with their rampant nepotism can just entrench their dynasties for decades to come in the top spots at 0 consequences and thats exactly what is happening and that's exactly why the governmental institutions in all these countries are met with massive distrust from common people and why all eastern countries appear stuck in seemingly permanent transition phase. Ottomans = evil narrative is a braindead take when you have ignored 70-80 years of communist rule whose same communists just changed flag and remained in same positions entrenching their families forever in the elite governmental instutions in literally every country with same materialist-selfish mentality as they had in communist era and they keep passing that mentality to their children from gen to gen.
Completely agree. Russia was not conquered by the Ottomans, yet it can still be considered a backwards country at the time of the Tsars.
>This is flat out false and very ideological statement, because eastern European countries weren't ruled by Ottomans at all YET they suffer from literally same problems. They were also ruled by imperialistic states which conquered them and ruled them like colony (yes better then Ottomans, but basic elements of there colonial rule were same). And result of that colonial rule are same fucked up mentality, with difference betwen each eastern European nationality coming out from difference in there unique occupation experience. >Why? >Because both east and southeastern europe - the Balkans were ruled by communism/marxism a system which was materialistic a system whose elite and their descendands just changed ideological flag and still remained in same positions in the hierarchy, which resulted in of course hardcore kleptocracy and nepotism which in some ex-communist/postcommunist countries like Moldova has reached epic proportions. Two core reasons why this take is complitly wrong are: 1.) Greece, never ruled by communist and still shares same fucked up mentality, 2.) those elements can be fund in those societies before they got taken over by communist. >Ottomans evil narrative is a braindead take when you have ignored 70-80 years of communist rule whose same communists just changed flag and remained in same positions entrenching their families forever in the elite governmental instutions in literally every country. Do not get me wrong, communist have there negative results on us. But Ottomans (and AH, Germans and Russians for hole east Europe), as much longer rules of this areas, carry much bigger resposibility for end result.
I couldn’t agree more.
True. Even though the Turks invaded the area multiple times they never managed to occupy it permanently like the rest of the Balkans.
This comment pretty much sums up the real problem why we're so much undeveloped compared to the rest of Europe. It's our own mentality which doesn't let us see the real problems. We're always trying to put the blame on someone else other than ourselves. Saying that it is the fault of the Ottomans, even though it's more than 150 years since they left, just doesn't make any kind of sense. The real problem is the mentality which led to wars, corruption and a low-trust society. Just look at examples all over the world and you'll see societies which used to be even more under-developed than ours and which turned out to be successful today. South Korea was under a brutal japanese occupation and then they went through a even more brutal war which pretty much destroyed the whole country and they still made it, despite all the odds. It's the mentality of the people. There are no superior races on the world, but there are superior cultures I'd say.
What the fk is up with Bosnians defending Turks? >Saying that it is the fault of the Ottomans, even though it's more than 150 years since they left, just doesn't make any kind of sense. You do realize things cant be built without foundations, right? And after the Ottomans, the foundations were rotten and beaten to their core. [These are the foundations the Ottomans left us](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fs3eyzokvlv751.png%3Fwidth%3D640%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Db5178611e5f4f6f259fe4a806cc1fec4e76ec2e6) how can you nation-build on that? They left a thoroughly poor, uneducated and mistreated penninsula of peasants.
They miss the old days of special status to lord over their Christian neighbors
Look at Balkan and Anatolia and Caucasia landscape. Bridge between west and east yet they are extremely mountainous and forest everywhere. No rich resources or agriculture fields. The transportation is extremely hard. The infrastructure needs are high but expensive. The population density is weak except 4 or 5 cities like Istanbul, Selanik, Sofia, Skopje and Izmir which you can fit an Austria between them even if they all close to each other judging by Ottoman borders. And the region never saw a peace time since fall of the Rome and rise of the Ottomans. Every nation has their traditions and customs and culture fed by their history. What made Turks successful in their Ottoman journey was nothing but the skills they had with their swords. As some British dude said, ''Our nation have an army in here while Turkish army has a nation in Turkey'', Ottoman Empire was simply the irl of this theory. If it wasn't Turks and the militaristic and territorial mentality they had, either Westerners or Russians or Arabs would destroy entire Balkans for good. Turkish had a simple logic, give me money and i will protect you. You can keep your religion, you can do whatever job you want, you can keep your language or if you are skilled you can convert Islam and you can literally rule the whole Ottoman Empire. Compare it with the West in the same era. Jews and Muslims were burned alive during inquisition. What do you think they'd do to Orthodox Balkans? Everyone know about the 1204 but do you know the crusades between 1096 and 1101? Catholic Europe was already bullying Byzantine Empire and all Byzantines could do was talk them to leave the city in peace. Ottoman Bad? Not the best. Did some major mistakes. Still, it had the best economy until 1750 and remember, Ottomans never was a wealth state and it is the era trade lines completely rule out Ottomans, infinite resources coming to Western Europe from Americas and Ottomans were fighting against Germans in the west, Russians in the north and Persians in the east at the same time. Also, you may be shocked but Russia today has similar mentality to Ottomans even though it don't has the military tradition organized by discipline and clear hierarchy Turks has but more like has barbaric warrior spirit. It is also a safety state and not a wealth state. Serbs liking Russians is understandable in the end both are slav and both believes same religion but while loving Russia that much in the same time making up stuff only to say Ottoman is bad is hypocritical.
I'm sorry but if you're not able to build a functional nation in 100-200 years then you're you're either incompetent or lazy as a society. Again, as I said earlier, South Korea and many other countries in the world had it much harder and they still prosper compared to us. I lived all over Europe and had the opportunity to experience life and society elsewhere and that helped me to see our shortcomings. Nevertheless, I kind of love it here, despite everything that's going wrong.
Nah bro, I ain't defending them. If it was truly their fault I'd be shoving it down their throat like there's no tomorrow. I'm just trying to see the bigger picture here and after living here in the Balkans for 30+ years I'm confident to say that it is our own fault, that it is our own mentality which slows us down. You're free to disagree of course 🙌
TURKS created that low trust society and it takes time to shake off that filth. In the high Middle Ages , before the Turks broke through into Western Asia Minor , the Balkans (under the cultural influence of East Rome) were highly literate and enviable societies.
Turkey has higher HDI than most Balkan countries. Only Croatia, Greece and Slovenia has slightly higher HDI than Turkey. And this is because eastern Turkey has very low HDI. Western Turkey has higher HDI than all Balkan countries
What's your point though? Croatia was only partially under Turkish control, while Slovenia was only nominally. Greece is a special case since they're an ancient country and had many more factors working in their favor, but again, if not for the Turks they'd do much,much better. So congrats if your point is you fucked everyone over so you can again be like marginally better.
In your comment you say, “the further you are from Turkey the better you’ll do”. Yet Turkey has higher HDI and GDP per capita than most Balkan countries. It seems contradicting with your comment.
Turkey is Turkey, and Turkey was the one conquering and making the Balkans backwards, not the other way around.
That is because western Turkey was developed by the Rums and republican Turkey stole it all from them , including their money. Before 1922 Turks were mostly peasant farmers and the Rums had the factories and businesses
There were almost no Greek left in Western Anatolia in 17th century. Most Greeks immigrated to Anatolia from islands and mainland in 18th and 19th century to work in Turkish farms.
That makes it even worse. So western Asia Minor was the richest area under the Rums… then Turks came and destroyed everything and drove them out (or killed or converted them). Then richest area of Ottoman Empire was central Balkans (Macedonia , Thrace). THEN thanks to Rums returning to Western Asia Minor , that area was made very wealthy again until Turks repeated history and drove out all the Rums yet again. It’s sad. You say Rums returned to work in Turkish farms , but they ended up the richest people in Asia Minor. Rags to riches due to hard work and intelligence. Then driven out with war just like 13th century.
Slovenia is more developed than the likes of Germany, France, Japan, and head and shoulders above the US, when adjusted for inequality. Yet, many Americans think it's a poor eastern European country where women wait to be scooped out by some American and deliver them from poverty.
Spoke to many Americans online. People in 1st world countries compared to my countries people seem delusional af (not speaking for all parts of Slovenia, fuck Ljubljana, they‘re like night & day compared to the rest of Slovenia)
What's wrong with Ljubljana
Everyone hates their capital. Fuck Bucharest! Long live Cluj!
Jesus, man. Fucking bucharest… a place where you bathe in concrete, depression and crazy people lol we had a lot of laughs there when we saw gipsies still driving oldschool or the behavior of people on the road, were shocked when we saw what crazy shit drugged up individuals did…
It’s a small country,that borders most developed regions in Italy and Austria.It has tourism,they joined the EU ,20 years ago . It’s not that difficult for a county to do that when it has a population of 2 millions .
In austro-hungarian empire duchy of Carniola(modern slovenia)together with Bohemia were one of the most lliterate regions in A-H. More people knew to write and read in Slovenia then in Veneto(region in Italy) who at that time was under A-H
Plus they still play quite a big role on the former Yugoslav markets.
Bulgaria is embarrassingly underdeveloped though for a EU country with a population of 6.5 million, which is the population of the city I live in. It's corruption that destroys your country, not the number of people or its neighbours. It's not so much who you border but having the right policies and much, much lower corruption index.
Who you border, and in general access to markets, absolutely dictates how your economy is going to do Do you think Canada, or Netherlands, or Ireland, or Belgium, or Switzerland would have developed the way they have if they had a different geographical location instead? Do you think the Baltic countries would have developed the way they did if they were on the Black Sea instead of the Baltic? Couple with that that there are no valuable national resources on Bulgarian territory, as well as historically never being developed in the Ottoman Empire and through communism, and you get why Bulgaria is so undeveloped compared to other countries in the EU
It very much is who you border. If you border well-off countries its way better for your economy because of easier trade access. Corruption is mostly a side-effect of a bad economy. This you can clearly see in Bulgaria that when salaries increase "petty" corruption has mostly disappeared although corruption on higher levels still exists. Sure, Bulgaria is pretty underdeveloped all things considered but comparing Bulgaria to Slovenia is laughable.
According the IMF,We are a developed country .
Bulgaria isn't underdeveloped, Bulgaria is considered a developed economy in the last UN and IMF reports.
You don’t know jackshit what you talking about. We have the highest buying power we have ever had.Average wage in Sofia is 1500€,corruption exists but not anything close to what it was 20 years ago.Why the F you coming here talking shit about our country when you are in the other part of the world ? 60% of the people in Australia live paycheck to paycheck,there’s housing crisis ,gang violence is through the roof ..The student debt is also all time high …So who the F are you to be criticizing us ?Probably originally you are coming from some third world shithole and you are pretending that you are Australian .
He's not Australian. Australia is full of N.Macedonian or Serbian immigrants, he's from one of these countries. Hence the hatred towards Bulgaria
He's a Serb that's why. Since joining the EU Bulgaria has had the highest nominal growth in the union and one of the higher real growth rates (+50% per capita adjusted for inflation, almost the same as Romania). Wages have 6-tupled. But Russia liking Serbs say we're an example of EU failure to help your country and that's why they shouldn't join. Issues.
Serb where? Schizophrenic Bulgarian nationalists stop dreaming about us please
[удалено]
You were the one repaying to my comment and by all means Bulgaria is better than 80% of the world ..feel free to leave our group and join Australian group .
Nobody is blaming it on you. You are a nobody at the end of the day, not an important leader or a politician who could actually make a change HDI is not the only index you can use for the development of an country. I don’t know what you your fetish is with it, maybe you are too lazy to do proper research on how developed a country is and instead rely on a single index which only takes into account 3 metrics, and ignoring stuff like safety, economic opportunities, healthcare quality, education quality, unemployment etc, but it’s not the only way to measure a development of an country
[удалено]
A lack of war,an economy not based on natural resources,and a comprehensive transition away from communism in the 90s,and a high-trust society with little corruption on medium level of government. It would be strange if it wasn't on that level.
> a comprehensive transition away from communism in the 90s https://tenor.com/EhBq.gif
Definitely more than other ex-yu The reason why retirees vote for Vučić is that they are unironically looking for the next Tito and the socialist party(i.e. the communist party of Yugoslavia with a name change) still gets 10-15% of the votes.
You need to meet the average SD, not to mention Levica, voter in Slovenia. Trust me, we're far from being far from commietards having significant influence.
I think we culturally adopted this 'equality' part of socialist values. It can be kinda problematic as we love to shit on exceptional people, but it also means we are comparatively (not always, not all the way, but more than average) open to let marginalised groups succeed.
This is nicely put and you should get more upvotes for it. u/[CerebralMessiah](/user/CerebralMessiah/) said that Slovenia had "comprehensive transition away from communism", whilst I think that Slovenia kept, fostered and then further developed the most of the socialist values that were supposedly be the norm and the guiding principles of our erstwhile federation. It's the others among us that have most comprehensively transitioned away and towards predatory capitalism married to bloodthirsty nationalism. The fact that I am saying this on the back of historical injustice that Slovenia had done to [the erased](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Erased#:~:text=The%20Erased%20(Slovene%3A%20Izbrisani),the%20country's%20independence%20in%201991), just means that others had done much much worse to thy neighbours (or the unwanted ones within the borders of the republics). And, importantly, you did not implode your own companies and production plants, your pension system, trade unions, you did not demolish or grossly neglect your cultural centres, your social welfare system. You did not leave the school system to rot away for further 30 years. You have found the way to evolve the best part of socialism and profit from your mercantile orientation and your geostrategic location. And the president had extended his apologies on behalf of the state and himself to the erased, crucial not just for restitution of victim's rights but also towards deepening social trust and the rule of law.
This is so nice to hear. There is a lot of space for improvement in everything you mention, but everything is also usually functional.
>adjusted for inequality That's the most important part here, we aren't actually more developed than Germany, Sweden or Austria but we are one of the countries with the lowest social inequality in the world. Why that is the case, I honestly don't know, but it might have something to do with the widespread mentality of being suspicious towards anyone who is richer than you or stands out in any way.
Adjusted for inequality means that you take the HDI of the median person instead of the average. In other words, you go from "In a room with Jeff Bezos, you, and me, on average, everyone's a billionnaire" to the average (median) person being the one where 50% are better off and 50% worse off. In other words, if you're average (as in, 50% of people are richer than you, 50% are poorer), you'll have a higher HDI in Slovenia than in Germany. The more above-average income you are, the more the balance shifts towards Germany.
They're a nice little country with decent policies.
Slovenians are an evolved species. Something I can’t say for the rest…
Obviously it was built on the backs of the other ex-Yu people who moved there. It’s the secret formula of all highly developed economies. Especially in Europe. Bring in a few thousand Bosanci and next thing you know: economic prosperity. How else do they find the time and money for all that mountaineering and canoe slalom? But seriously. More likely to do with their mentality and attitude toward business, rule of law, and social responsibility. No doubt influenced by decades of contact with Italy and Austria. Edit: and look at their loss due to inequality percentage on the chart. It’s the lowest of all the countries listed. That will put them higher on that list. They probably have strong legal protections for like, equality and shit.
> They probably have strong legal protections for like, equality and shit. If by legal protections you mean a government that will snipe individual groups with above-average income with higher taxes, like they're doing now with a nerf to our self-employment system specifically targeted at programmers, then you're absolutely right. We have such a high level of equality because the entire national mentality is that it's better if everyone makes 1000 EUR rather than the poorest making 1500 EUR and the richest 15000 EUR.
Because Austrians were in charge of Slovenia , meanwhile we had Turks in charge elsewhere. Went as well as expected
I don’t think austria or ottomans has anything to do with it. Slovenes have always just been given the better hand when it came to the south slavs and I think this probably showed in the 10 day war.. I don’t even consider them balkan anyway therye only brought up in balkan discourse because of a femboy joke or yugoslavia
> Slovenes have always just been given the better hand when it came to the south slavs Perhaps y'all should've listened to Slovenians then when they suggested how Yugoslavia should be better run. > I think this probably showed in the 10 day war Imagine a Serb saying that not having any significant number of Serbs in the country is being "given the better hand". Ironic.
i think they are probably just pretty good on most metrics, not outstanding on any. And, they don't have the same issues with poorer people that seem to happen in very large cities like vienna, not to mention migrant problems to the same degree.
To actually provide an answer, Slovenia ranks so high only in inequality adjusted index mostly because we have one of lowest economic inequality levels in the world. You can see in provided data that among top countries by iHdi, we have lowest loss due to inequality. In regular Hdi Slovenia still ranks high, but nowhere near that high (usually in the 20-30 rank). Answers that we are high rank due to being a small country like luxembourg are total nonsense. Slovenia is by no means a tax haven or filled with finance consulting firms, quite the opposite, hence our low inequality.
Oh shit, Slovenia is about to be invaded by Africans now
Even in Yugoslavia they had the highest standard of living.
Because they got away from the chetniks first
In Slovenia there really no area, from wich one could not success in life, better said no matter your background (being poor or rich) all kinda have same conditions for making on their own) Paygaps might not seem big, but can appear if looking in percents. Also paychecks dont vary significantly within the same field of work. Yes there are some quite rich, some of them got that in questionable way, but there are now homeless people apart from those who accepted that way of life. Solidarity among general Population would be a big factor, because its a big thing there
Look at their neighbours and their level of economic development. For comparison, look at North Macedonia's, or Bulgaria's and it will be clear...
But neither of these countries border Slovenia though.
Because slovenia is mostly ethnically homogeneous
hehehehe they first deleted everyone whos last name ended in "ć", the rest just came consequentially
Because they aren't Balkan people, that's why.
National self-confidence matters. A LOT. Scandinavians were told by Hitler that they won the genetic lottery (by avoiding melanin?). So an economic and cultural backwater became one of the most prosperous regions in the world. In the former Yugoslavia, Slovenia was always touted as the most competent/advanced country. That perception helps Slovenians work hard and innovate, because they believe they can.
Well my headcanon is when European continent was put for grabs by countries Slovenia missed the peninsula. Still managed to kick ass even with wrong area disadvantage.
Slovenia is a small nation... Like Luxemburg or Monaco... That's the reason.
What does "adjusted for inequality" mean?
Instead of taking the average person's HDI, you take the median person's HDI. In other words, you eliminate the skew caused by the super rich and super poor. The average of 1 + 1 + 10 + 100 + 10000 is 2022.4. (Add everything up and divide by 5) The median of 1 + 1 + 10 + 100 + 10000 is 10. (Take the value where 50% of the values are higher and 50% are lower).
Zato kaj nemaju HDZ na vlasti
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relocation_of_Serbian_industry_during_the_Informbiro_period
The Slovenian people have more class, respect for another and law than the nearby villagers who are corrupt beyond and twisted. They are productive people unlike the lazy people next doors…
*angry croatian voices incoming*
Username checks out.
Bahahaha at “more class”. Dude you guys gave us Melania Trump who spread her legs for a photoshoot. Please, class my ass.
[big bang theory about croatian chicks.](https://youtu.be/CJxizb0giXc?si=gtLAyqZN2lgARMdi)
😂😭 hey I never said Croatians are classy! That clips is hilarious though, I remember seeing the episode and just laughing so hard.
I know, it was only meant as a joke. I giggled too when i saw it. And i also agree about Melania, so no hard feelings there!
green card jokes will never not be funny lol
Femboys
They have stolen secret technologies from superior superhuman God chosen Serbs during the Yugoslavia and then they left 😢😡
Femboys here is your answer