>>18128>Actually, why? You are very closely related, and you aren't Slavic savages who hate each other just because they can.
Remember the Kalmar Union? Remember when Sweden seceded, and the rivalry between our empires after that? That's why us and the Swedes are kinda at each other. The Southern Slavs I believe hate each other because of their religions, and how they write their language in. >I don't think that modern Ossetia has anything related to Iranian world at all. They are assimilated to local Caucasian world long ago.
They're still very much Iranian. They're not Persian, but Iranian. They speak an Indo-Iranian language, they descend from the Scythians, the Sarmatians, and the Alans, notable Iranian nomads, hell, North Ossetia in Russia is formally called "The Republic of North Ossetia-Alania". Many Ossetians today practice Uatsdin and other Scythian religion (29.4% in North Ossetia-Alania, and an unknown but notable minority in South Ossetia). I'd still consider it part of the Iranian world. >For some reason. ideas of Greek Constantinople and resurrection of Byzantines is thriving in the heads of westerners.
Really, I'd give up. Moscow is already basically the successor to Constantinople to Orthodox Christians (the third Rome), yet they care so much about Greeks retaking Constantinople. You don't hear anything about Greeks wanting to "retake Alexandria", or "retake Carthage", or Germans wanting to "retake Bohemia + Moravia, Southern Jutland, Prussia and Danzig", they care more about Istanbul and Anatolia. There's no reason to take it aside from its strategic location, and it's not in the interest of Americans to take Istanbul, hell, Greeks don't even like Americans.>Yeah. that's fun, especially today. Although Panslavism isn't a meme - real proponents of this idea exist, and some part of population in all slavic countries are ok with it (although in some countries it is very small part).
Yeah, if a union between the Southern Slavs failed, if a union between the Eastern Slavs (technically the Russian Empire and Soviet Union?) failed, and a union between the Western Slavs (Czechoslovakia) failed, a union between ALL Slavs would go totally well. Also, keep in mind that this Slavic state would not contain just the modern day Slavic nations, but would likely contain the Russian majority areas in Kazakhstan (which is apparently part of the Slavic world in this map), and Uzbekistan. Yep, that'd go totally well.>>18131>Why doesn't Scandinavia get Åland? One would expect the author to be a stormfag with a massive hardon for Germanics and thus inflate their territory as much as possible.
The odd thing is, as much as he is an American with absolutely no real knowledge of European history, he gives the Germanics the other end of the straw. Czechoslovakia gets to keep Bohemia and Moravia, Poland gets to keep Prussia and Danzig, and Flanders is apparently part of the "Pan Latin world". A true "Pan Germanicist" would include Flanders and the German part of Wallonia.