-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yes, in that case, as Tito agreeed with Greek partisans, Greece would become 9th federative unit.The Great Duck said:
Yes, you miss many important information that lead you to a wrong conclusion. However, I do not have time to explain you. Try Wikipedia, under Serbian-Greek friendship, Српско-грчко пријатељство, Ελλινοσερβιακη φιλια, etc.Miihkali said:
Miihkali said:
I can not agree with you as both germany and italy united in the industrialisation era. even yugoslavia was formed after WWI (If I remember correct it means united slavs) so if there in reality was talk of union I consider it very likely especially if both still have the same goverment as during the union talk. after all greeks would just be another people in the union
Yugoslavia doesn't mean united Slavs.It was the state of South Slavs,and Jug means South.
Skolehaven said:
But there's clear difference. Germans were all Germans, speaking same language and all German states had quite similar culture etc. And because of Holy Roman Empire had existed for thousand years Germans had some kind of connections. Also many of German intellectual had clear nationalism about uniting Germany.
In Italy same, all Italian states had same culture, nationality and language. Italians as well as Germans thought that they were same nation, just split up but could re-unite. Even in Yugoslavia they were almost all Serbocroats, different culture and religion, but at least almost same language and by the way the union was forced by foreign nations (UK). In 1920s and 1930s Yugoslavia was not very coherent nation, of course they had central government but still. And after WWII they had strong leadership Tito. Tito died and nation split up. And all Yugoslavs were Slavs.
But about Greek-Yugoslav, well they have completely different culture and language. They aren't all Slavs, actually Greeks and Yugoslavs didn't have any connections and... Well do you really think that nations without any connections would form a union just because they have similar governments and they think it's cool to form an union. Nowadays, actually always after WWI the thing what almost all nations have wanted is independence. In reality nobody planned about union, not (for example) Soviets or Yugoslavs about union if Greek government falls and Greece becomes socialist.
If we add any alternate history elements, it should be as plausible as possible. Imo there's two kinds of alternate history, "historical alternate history" (where you first introduce yourself to the things what happened those times, and then start to think what could happen)... And then there's 'ahistorical alternate history', where you just think "Hey it would be f****in' cool if Albania and Siam would form alliance called 'Axis of the World'" and then you start thinking how you could 'modificate' real history to make this plausible or even 'plausible'. And in my opinion this alliance between Greeks and Yugoslavs is just ahistorical alternate 'history'.
And for Vladimir II: I readed Wikipedian article Serbian-Greek relations which is redirected from Serbian-Greek friendship. In my opinion it hasn't any information which would make this idiotic alliance plausible.
But if you really want events for this alliance give 1 % chance for the alliance.
By my opinion the Bulgarians had a better chance to form a union with Yugoslavia in post war times as Yugoslavian and Greece. And lets say they would do that, who would rule, the Greeks or the Serbs (Who do we fake the Serbs ruled Yugoslavia).
Even if those 2 guys did say anything like that, it was more like this:
Yugoslavia: Dude our countries are beaten man.
Greece: Y man we have been pwned, those good for nothing allies Sux.
Yugoslavia:Had we only been stronger, like in world war 1 where we fought together.
Greece:Right man...
Yugoslavia:Lets form a personal Union after the war.
Greece:Why not (As long I rule it).
Yugoslavia:Nice (Yay another nation under Serbian control)
Even if those 2 guys did say anything like that, it was more like this:
Yugoslavia: Dude our countries are beaten man.
Greece: Y man we have been pwned, those good for nothing allies Sux.
Yugoslavia:Had we only been stronger, like in world war 1 where we fought together.
Greece:Right man...
Yugoslavia:Lets form a personal Union after the war.
Greece:Why not (As long I rule it).
Yugoslavia:Nice (Yay another nation under Serbian control)
Somebody asked for a link. Well, I do not have a link. But original documents can be found in both Archive of Yugoslavia in Belgrade, or Archive of Greece in Athens. There all of your questions will be answered.
There will be no 1% chances. Events will comply with historical facts. The union is not idiotic. And that vocabulary does not belong to word fund of a serious scientist. Do you even know what means word 'idiot' (in Ancient Greek ιδιοτης)?
There will be no 1% chances. Events will comply with historical facts. The union is not idiotic. And that vocabulary does not belong to word fund of a serious scientist. Do you even know what means word 'idiot' (in Ancient Greek ιδιοτης)?
Vladimir II said:
Who planned this alliance? If there really were some plans about union, well I agree that I made a mistake. But still, even if there were plans we should remember that even when some guys planned an alliance it doesn't mean it then should be 99 % probablity for an alliance.
Vladimir II said:
Actually yes I know. It was once in Finnish Wikipedia frontpage saying Did you know... ...that idiot meant individual in Greek... And actually idiot meant in old terminology of psychology a man (or woman...) who's IQ was under 20.
And yes, I'm quite sure most of serious scientist don't use word idiotic as often as I use. But I'm not trying to be a scientist, I just told my opinion about this pact.
Well I certainly believe a Greeko-Yugoslavian Union is a possibility. Even the French and English were on the verge of forging an union, when to Germans blitzed through france in 1940.
And before someone asked where I have it here.! And yes Churchill proposed it!
There is actually a movie of Charles de Gaulle where this subject was mentioned. The union was not fullfiled because of Petain!
So a Greeko-Yugoslavian Union is not impossible.
And before someone asked where I have it here.! And yes Churchill proposed it!
There is actually a movie of Charles de Gaulle where this subject was mentioned. The union was not fullfiled because of Petain!So a Greeko-Yugoslavian Union is not impossible.
Finland tried to enter a union with Sweden after the winter war. Although that union might have had quite a lot of historical plausibility.
Sources:
"Under Vinterkriget hade Finland orienterat sig mot Skandinavien. Den 14 mars 1940 berättade president Kyösti Kallio att man föreslagit en försvarspakt med Sverige och Norge. Moskva reagerade snabbt och efter en vecka meddelade Sovjetunionens utrikesminister Vjatjeslav Molotov att den planerade nordiska försvarspakten var emot Moskvafredens villkor. Att Norge invaderades av Tyskland påverkade också projektet, men den var inte helt begraven ens då. I oktober 1940 kom saken fram igen i form av en svensk-finsk union"
I'll translate the important parts.
...14 march 1940 finnish president announced that they had suggested a Swedish-Finnish-Norwegian defence pact... ...Moscow declared it was against the Moscow peaceterms... ...In October 1940 a Swedish-Finnish union was suggested...
Edit: I might declare why there never was a union between Sweden and Finland. Swedens demands were that both Germany and Soviet would accept it and that Finland would let go all dermands of the territories ceded to SU during the winter war. The Germans declared that they didn't like the idea and the Soviet represant in Sweden warned the Swedish foreign minister that such a union would dissolve the Moscow peace treaty.
Sources:
"Under Vinterkriget hade Finland orienterat sig mot Skandinavien. Den 14 mars 1940 berättade president Kyösti Kallio att man föreslagit en försvarspakt med Sverige och Norge. Moskva reagerade snabbt och efter en vecka meddelade Sovjetunionens utrikesminister Vjatjeslav Molotov att den planerade nordiska försvarspakten var emot Moskvafredens villkor. Att Norge invaderades av Tyskland påverkade också projektet, men den var inte helt begraven ens då. I oktober 1940 kom saken fram igen i form av en svensk-finsk union"
I'll translate the important parts.
...14 march 1940 finnish president announced that they had suggested a Swedish-Finnish-Norwegian defence pact... ...Moscow declared it was against the Moscow peaceterms... ...In October 1940 a Swedish-Finnish union was suggested...
Edit: I might declare why there never was a union between Sweden and Finland. Swedens demands were that both Germany and Soviet would accept it and that Finland would let go all dermands of the territories ceded to SU during the winter war. The Germans declared that they didn't like the idea and the Soviet represant in Sweden warned the Swedish foreign minister that such a union would dissolve the Moscow peace treaty.
Last edited:
But hey, Van der Gent. Defence pact is not same than union. Same on Greek-Yugoslavia. I could believe they would from military alliance, but not union.
But which kind of union? I believe you, but this is interesting since I've never heard about this before..Van der Gent said:
Zauberfloete-First France and Britain never wanted to enter a full Union. They just wanted that certain state organs become united in the time of crisis. The only real time where there was a chance for them to from a united state was during the 100 year war (But this would be a unity by English aggression or inhabitation). So they were never near an unification.
Van der Gent-Can you give me a link on the Internet where that is actually stated (Not that I would not believe you).
ANYONE POSTING A POSSIBILITY OF AN UNION BETWEEN 2 NATIONS SHOULD BRING SOME PROOF WITH HIM.
AND NOTE THAT ANY KIND OF MILITARY ALLIANCE FOR A MORE EFFECTIVE DEFENSE, DOESN'T COUNT AS AN UNION.
Van der Gent-Can you give me a link on the Internet where that is actually stated (Not that I would not believe you).
ANYONE POSTING A POSSIBILITY OF AN UNION BETWEEN 2 NATIONS SHOULD BRING SOME PROOF WITH HIM.
AND NOTE THAT ANY KIND OF MILITARY ALLIANCE FOR A MORE EFFECTIVE DEFENSE, DOESN'T COUNT AS AN UNION.
Err...i'm french, i think i know what i am talking about...Delex said:
Anyway, Churchill proposed a TOTAL union to Reynaud's government. But before he could answer, he was replaced by Petain who had obviously other things in mind.
So if the question is "did UK and FRA think about a total union during WW2 ?", the answer is "yes". If the question is "did UK and FRA unite during WW2 ?", then the answer is an obvious "no".