If there was no USA and UN influence on the Balkans, would Serbia rule the western Balkans? if not, who would?
407084
Serbians think of themselves as a powerful nation, \nbut I don't believe they could rule anything.\n\nIt would be the EU's job to stop serbian psychos
456349
Definitely not. The country as a whole was not culpable for WWI, and for that matter, the leaders of Germany were not culpable. The whole thing could have been solved diplomatically, but as soon as Archduke Ferdinand was killed, Austria demanded certain things, Serbia refused, and there was a cascade of declarations of war. It's absurd to say that Germany was responsible for all of this. At the very least, Britain and France should have mediated the conflict between Austria and Serbia BEFORE it came to declarations of war.\n\nThere's also the fact that the reparations were not about keeping Germany from doing it again, they were about punishment. All they really needed to do after the war was establish monitoring systems to make sure Germany was not rebuilding a military, the one thing they didn't do.
993023
No. Thats why Clinton was wrong when he invaded Bosnia without UN approval. He then bombed those poor lil' people to kingdom come.
166981
Definite NO! If that were to happen, then freewill would be forfeited to that power. If one disagrees with that power, it could mean death for that person.\n\nThis is going to happen though, in the not-too-distant future. America is that Superpower. You've already witnessed what happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Soon America's going to just overrule the UN Security council & do what she pleases with the world. I say overrule in the assumption that 1 or 2 countries may disagree with this but most of them will agree with being ruled by America.
112731
Croatia will join EU in the next round after it cleans its act up. They've had a few internal political hiccups along the way, but I think they will come out fine. Croatia will have positive economical effects, and I would say tourism will become one of its main industries. Political, will be interesting.. Especially if Serbia decides to apply for EU. Not familiar enough with Barry's theory to comment.
255929
From wikipedia.com:\n\nThree new Balkan states formed at the end of the 19th century. All three, as well as Montenegro, sought additional territories from the large, Turkish-ruled regions known as Albania, Macedonia, and Thrace. The incomplete emergence of these nation-states on the fringes of the Ottoman Empire during the nineteenth century set the stage for war. Initially under the encouragement of Russia, a series of agreements were concluded: between Serbia and Bulgaria in March 1912 and between Greece and Bulgaria in May 1912. Montenegro subsequently concluded agreements between Serbia and Bulgaria respectively in October 1912. The Serbian-Bulgarian agreement specifically called for the partition of Macedonia which resulted in the First Balkan War. The second Balkan War soon followed.
1008951
191 countries are currently UN members.Montenegro will probably apply for membership too
1050009
Montenegro, they separate from Serbia about 1 month ago.\n\nMaybe you would see another country in Europe forming, after Cataluña getting independence from Spain.
774327
America, whether under Bush or not, would never join or participate in any pan-National group unless they can use, manipulate and gain from their fellow members.\n\nThe problem with his attempt to engage troops in Afghanistan or Iraq is that the Treaty (ie the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) may not legally permit such engagement for the reasons posited by Bush.\n\nAnd the NATO leadership may decide Bush's request would be more appropriately sent to the United Nations for troops to keep the peace (which is all UN troops are allowed to do, since they're not permitted to use firearms unless first fired upon).\n\nSo, any request for troops from NATO would indicate an intention to attack first, offensively and in force.\n\nAnd to answer your question, I would have to conclude yes - Bush shall use NATO as a buffer and relief strategy for US troop levels in the region - if, and only if, NATO let him away with it.\n\nBut "we" don't get to decide.  There will be no referendum on the subject, and the decision will be made in our name by people who did not stand for public election and therefore cannot be removed by way of a popular vote.
456299
Romania and Bulgaria are Axis satellites; Greece and Yugoslavia are members of the United Nations; Albania is occupied territory; and Turkey has been a fairly consistent nonbelligerent. Bulgaria was happy with German permission to occupy Yugoslavian and Greek Macedonia and Thrace. Obedient to its master’s voice, Romania did not complain out loud when Hitler ordered the cession of northern Transylvania to Hungary in 1940. But Romania has not forgotten this enforced loss of territory, and underneath the surface of common membership in the Axis, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria are seething with territorial jealousies and ambitions. Greece and Yugoslavia are also insistent that their seized provinces shall be restored to them.\n\nSuch trouble spots as Transylvania, Thrace, Macedonia, Northern Epirus, Kossovo, and the Banat may be just words to other people. But to the people of the Balkans they have been fighting words. Much had been done before the war, however, to make boundary disputes less dangerous to peace. Only one of the six Balkan states, Bulgaria, was still unreconciled, and even Bulgaria had undertaken not to try to modify its frontiers by force of arms.\n\nAdded to these disputes between the nations are the internal divisions between various groups within (or exiled from) each country. That between the Chetniks and the Partisans is only the most spectacular and most publicized conflict. In Greece and Albania as well, struggles are in progress between the popular, forces of resistance and liberation on the one hand, and the elements of reaction and collaboration on the other, although the latter are almost negligible. The real fight is rather between bands with conflicting ideas of patriotism. Some people think there are pro-Allied movements in Bulgaria and Romania too, awaiting the opportunity to throw out pro-Axis governments. In all the Balkan countries, as in the rest of Europe, there are seeds of civil strife.\n\nIn this pamphlet, much of the blame for past Balkan troubles has been freely placed on the great powers. But of course they are not solely responsible.\n\nUncritical nationalism is particularly strong in the Balkans. And it is just in the Balkans, a small area crowded with many different peoples, that unbridled nationalist rivalry is perhaps most dangerous. The great powers have been as much motivated by nationalism as the small ones—and perhaps will continue to be. But if it is questionable whether they can afford to prolong a system in which aggressive nationalism is curbed only by the force of opposing nationalism, it is certain that the Balkan countries cannot afford it.\n\nTo put it the other way around, if the great powers have had to “recognize the necessity of establishing ... a general international organization ... for the maintenance of ... peace and security,” in the words of the Moscow Declaration, the Balkan nations are still more obliged to seek for peaceful ways of settling conflicts through cooperation or else destroy themselves.\n\nIn the settlements after World War I it was clearly not possible to draw national boundaries in the Balkans according to the wishes of all the people. Unavoidably a great many people in the mixed populations had to be left on the “wrong” side of the line wherever it was drawn. To resolve this difficulty, population exchanges were suggested and tried as the easiest and most durable solution.\n\nIn one instance—between Greece and Turkey after 1923—that method proved, in its outcome, highly successful. It removed the cause of incessant quarreling between Turkey and Greece who have since become good friends instead of bitter enemies. In a second instance—between Greece and Bulgaria—it was also beginning to show good results.\n\nPopulation exchange might work as well in other instances and again in some it could not be applied. To uproot the half-million or so Albanians who live in the Kossovo region of Yugoslavia and dump them into an already pov
452059
OK let me answer your questions one by one.\n\n1. I don't think Serbia will be the biggest traiding partner. Why not? After all what happened in that region, we don't trust serbs. (that's the general opinion of kosovar albanians).\n\n2. Minority rights will be protected. It's been quite a while since last incident between albanians and serbs. With time people will forget and go on with their lives.\n\n3. I think no one will prevent serbs from going to their churches.\n\n4. Well...It'll take time until people forget what happened. It was a dirty war. Thousands of inocent people were killed, children, women. I think years will pass and poeple will not forget what happened, but as they say "Time heals everything". \nYou said serbs and albanians had no problems a 100 years ago? well serbs have had no problems with slovens, croats and bosnians a 100 years ago neither but they did have a problem now. Remember, always you will have a problem when you repress people, when you take their rights away.\n\n5. Yes, serbia and croatia have managed to improve their relations. Eventually kosovar albanians and serbs will improve their relations too in about 10 years from now.\n\nTo wrap it up....The future of Kosovo's status will be known soon. I think that's a big help for both nations, serbs and albanians, because we will know where we stand. \nI'm optimistic that the relations will improve and hopefully things will get better in both sides.\n-----------------------------------------------\n\nTo the person who answered below:\n\nif serbia has nothing to import from kosovo, why all the trouble to keep it then? do you really think that serbia government cares for some religious objects? do you know that kosovo has the largest coal deposits in balkans and third in europe? it has coal enough to supply the whole region for at least 13 centuries. do you know that kosovo has the largest lead deposits in europe, not to mention iron, zync, chrome and copper. etc etc
396806
Kosovo and Metohija (Mae-toe-khy-a) is southern Serbian province. It originates such status from 1974 Yugoslav Constitution, when Yugoslav president Tito (president from 1945 to 1980; born 1892, died 1980) - old and not having total power any more, had to make new deals with nationalists from Croatia (Croatia was the only country that was with Germany in II WW but after war was awarded more territories than it had before the war) who wanted their independant state. So, as an answer, some of them were send to prison for a while, but Serbia was divided into two provinces and one unidentified central region left in the middle: like P-C-P model (Province-Central_Area-Province). Why was that? \n\n  Because Croats stated that Serbia has much power in Yugoslavia. Serbia was kingdom before joining in Yugoslav state (state of Yugo (South) Slave(n)s), and outnumbered all the other nations that joined into one country. So, Tito decided to divide Serbia into three parts, and two of them became "little republics into a republic", and third (central part) had no attribute - strange indeed. So, Serbia had three governments then: Kosovo and Metohia, Vojvodina, and (joined) Serbian government. Central part didn't have it's own parliament.\n\n  When war started in Yugoslavia, Kosovo Albanians tried to separate from Serbia. They didn't succeed for years, but finally, with American help (and with help of people who have great influence in some European countries where USA has it's own great influence), they will soon have independance.\n\n  Well, independance in way called secession (like California decides to leave USA), and with 40.000 USA troops.\n\n  I guess any part of world where USA and NATO (USA again) have their interests can gain independance from the country they belong to, just as long as USA can install government and bring it's army, oil companies, rockets, etc.\n\n  Simple as that...\n\n  Read my answer to question: "Secret marriage?" - you'll find it if you click on my profile, and then find it in my answer list.\n\n  Read also: "If there was no USA and UN influence on the Balkans, would Serbia rule the western Balkans? if not, who would?"\n\n  Regards,\nm.
703108
Perhaps you're thinking of the Monroe Doctrine, issued by Monroe in 1823. The Doctrine claimed the Western Hemisphere pretty much under the control of the U.S., and that we would defend other countries in it against intrustion by European powers. \n\nThere's also the "Good Neighbor" policy under FDR, which is similar.
56453
Yes, UN is outdated and could not survive without the U.S.A. The big fix is that the security council needs to be re-constituted with the following most populous and influential nations in the 21st Century:\n\nUSA\nChina\nRussia\nIndia\nEuropean Union\nIndonesia\nBrazil
174406
The UN has always been a joke.  Recent US actions didnt change that they just pointed out what we all already knew.  I am visiting Bosnia and all the places that were designated UN safe zones where everybody got murdered because they were foolish enough to trust the UN.  Until the UN actually shows it is competant enough to do something (anything) the US and other countries like Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia will just keep doing whatever they want whether you agree with these actions is another question.
310006
They have many challenges to over come.  If they can get to having an inclusive leadership, then it will fall to them to build the inroads into the various cultures.  To some extent this has happened in the past but only under the rule of an iron fist, sort of like Yugoslavia was under Tito.  \n\nThe United States will begin to have less of an influence and will likely be gone within 5 years, then it will be interesting to see how the other States in the region leave them alone to build their own future.
1050955
SERBIA WILL WIN IT ALL