How to read about Central-Eastern Europe? Especially for smaller nations/peoples.
It seems a case of language and territory, opposed to say, national identities formed under historical constitutions; and I find it difficult to follow without thinking:
>they were nations from the very beginning
>national identity suddenly appeared out of nowhere at the threshold of the modern era.
Yet still these groups/tribes, have been culturally separate to some degree.
For example 'Slovaks' have been a culturally 'separate' group under Great Moravia, kingdoms of Poland, Hungary, Habsburgs, Austria-Hungary, Czechoslovakia... but they have somewhat ""always"" been there despite the changing borders and allegiances, and they've only been a nation state on and off through the 20th century and finally gaining independence only in 1993 with the velvet divorce.
So how am I supposed to read about Eastern Europe in a way that makes a cohesive narrative? Any advice?
Does any of this make sense? If not please correct me. Also looking for book recs.
>>2529067
Eastern Europe has three cultural spheres.
>Germanosphere
Czechia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary, partially Poland
>Russosphere
Russia, Ukraine, Belarus
>Turkosphere
Serbia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania
Then there are oddballs like the Baltics which can be classified as both Russosphere and Germanosphere.
>>2529088
Regarding the Baltics, they're trying to avoid Russia and re- allign themselves with the Scandi's so hard.
>>2529088
And romania which is neither.
>>2529067
a book called "the price of freedom" covers the history of east central europe (czech, polish, hungarians) in a cohesive narrative. you can dl it off bookzz. herres a link to a free download
http://bookzz.org/book/738828/3c5f10
>>2529312
Thanks, this is the kind of thing I am looking for, I hope there are other works people can recommend.
>>2529331
Also to add,
"regional approach" is the phrase I was looking for! These "national' histories seem quite narrow and there's a lot of isolation otherwise which is quite frustrating to me.
>>2529067
balkans ? ottoman ruledt hem 500 years they are all half turkish trust me. they are not "white" anymore...
>>2529416
Is this why Serbs are so neurotic about their heritage?
Also >>/pol/
Balkans in 1990s are *autistic screeching*.
what do you exactly want to know?
>>2529067
Everything you need to know about Serbs, Montenegrins and Muslims
https://www.rastko.rs/knjizevnost/umetnicka/njegos/mountain_wreath.html
>>2529822
montenegrins=serbs, right?
>>2529830
For the most part. The book, published in 1847 is essential for understanding that. Written by the Prince-Bishop of Montenegro
>DEDICATED TO THE ASHES OF THE FATHER OF SERBIA
>>2529855
why do montenegrins refuse do call themselfs serbs then?
>>2529931
Same reason Americans, English, Australians, Scots, New Zealanders, Canadians, etc. don't call themselves English.
>>2529939
you can't compare that
>>2529943
Not him but it's very comparable.
>>2529143
Latin blood
>>2529943
Its literally the same thing
Don't know about good English books on the subject other than Wandycz's Price for Freedom (history of v4 countries) but if there is anything specific you want to know about central European history, i can help
>>2529416
The unrelated to the discussion racepost no one asked for.
>>2529931
It's a lot more complicated. Because for a long time Montenegrin was just used as a regional term, like a New Yorker, Californian, Texan etc. Some other Serbian regional identities are Sumadinac, Vojvodjanin, Nislija (and many other city related identities).
As was written in the geography textbook for Montenegro from 1911.
>As of 1910 Montenegro has a population of around 300k, and all of them are Serbs, most are Orthodox, but there are others who follow Catholicism and Muhammad. There are Serbs living in other countries, some free (Serbia), some under foreign yoke (A-H, Turkey).
But during communism the meaning changed, and as communism was waning, so Montenegro went from being 95% Serbian to 90% Montenegrin, to 61% Montenegrin, to 44% Montenegrin over the decades, proportionally this was mostly a change in how the people viewed themselves, with a 5% Albanian and 1% Croat population being pretty much consistent.
Now flipping over and comparing it to the language census.
At the time 44% of population identified as Montenegrin 63% of the population said their first language was Serbian. There's also the fact that the literature of Montenegrin writers is the basis for Serbian nationalism.
After all the wars, and towards the end of the wars the relationship changed a bit.
Here's the unchallenged ruler of Montenegro 30 years running, and how his statements from the early 90s and 2003-2006 are diametrically opposed.
They don't refuse to call themselves Serbs, they just changed their mind about it. They went from calling themselves "the purest and greates of all Serbs" and "Serbia's Sparta" (Vojvodina/Novi Sad is called Serbia's Athens) to refusing to call themselves Serbs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vqz742ilpQU
Also, whenever they got separatist sentiments Italy was always involved in some way.
>>2529088
>turkosphere
triggered