![kekkonen-384x480[1].jpg](/up/0e86ef0f7f68ef53348dddaa670da349.jpg)
kek
What's your opinion of this man?
Top KEK era had this paradox going on.
On one hand Kekkonen was the bestest of pals with the Soviet leadership, would go hunt, sauna, get drunk with and tell jokes about silly westerners, all the while Finnish defence status was at its absolute maximum.
During Top Kek era Finland kinda became this smuggling port between east and the west.
All the western luxury goods Soviet higher bureaucrats enjoyed of were smuggled through Finland, and at the same time Finland enjoyed the benefit of getting cheap raw materials from the Soviet Union while getting high tech stuff from the west.
Kekkonen was kinda Putin-lite in many ways. Whenever his political opponents were giving speeches on a radio, there would be technical difficulties etc. After Kekkonen died, the Finnish parliament absolutely raped the powers of the president and made the title to be some glorified foreign minister instead. They were so afraid of Kekkonen 2.0.
That being said, there were some not so cool things as well. Finnish schools etc quite heavily self censored themselves when it came to bad mouthing the Soviet Union.
Finlandization meant that Finland kept its capitalist system and was able to trade with the west, but wasn't allowed to say anything bad about the east.
Finland during those years didn't have freedom of expression.
No, Serbs claim the Bosnians (muslims) are just Turkified Serbs and Croats that were separated with arbitrary borders which is pretty much the truth. The rest of the people living in Bosnia consider themselves as either Serbs or Croats. Bosnia is basically considered a geographical term, not an ethnic one.
Bosnian.
If you're wondering what the difference is, Bosnian has fully preserved pitch accent - vowel length system unlike Serbian or even more so Croatian, ijekavian yat-reflex like Croatian and unlike Serbian, fully stable h like Slovenian and unlike Croatian and even more so Serbian, and preserves ć-č distinction like Serbian and unlike Croatian (though Croatian keeps it in writing).
All in all, it is as distinct from Serbian and Croatian as they are from each other.
You are being severly disingenuous, as those have more differences than Serbian to Croatian to Bosnian to Montenegrin. And of course there is more to ethnicity and nationality than just language. Point was to show there is literally no separation from the language, it's all the same, which indicates something. And a medieval Bosnian church (a time when nations didn't yet exist as such), does nothing to make the region a separated nation from the ones around it today. If you simply look at the names of the medieval rulers of the Bosnian kingdom, you can see a whole slew of names that are painfully obviously either Serbian or Croatian.
>You are being severly disingenuous,
No u.
>as those have more differences than Serbian to Croatian to Bosnian to Montenegrin.
its dont. Especially when you consider that one of the Norwegian languages is closer to Danish than to the other Norwegian language, and same with Scanian "dialect of Swedish". >And of course there is more to ethnicity and nationality than just language. Point was to show there is literally no separation from the language, it's all the same, which indicates something.
Yes, it indicates that they're neighbours.
>And a medieval Bosnian church (a time when nations didn't yet exist as such),
Oh look, here comes the myth that "nations were invented in 19th century man, trust me". Do you really want to go the way of me disproving this communist lie?
>does nothing to make the region a separated nation from the ones around it today. If you simply look at the names of the medieval rulers of the Bosnian kingdom, you can see a whole slew of names that are painfully obviously either Serbian or Croatian.
I see a bunch of Slavic names.
And I find it especially ironic that the most "painfully obviously" Croatian name that features in Bosnian history, Hrvoje Hrvatinić, was a member of Serbian Orthodox Church.
Since I'm not a Scandinavian languages speaker, I can only rely on the descriptions of actual speakers, such as:
https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/the-scandinavian-languages-three-for-the-price-of-one
Or
https://lynganor.com/how-similar-are-norwegian-swedish-danish/#do-you-get-three-languages-for-the-price-of-one
Where the examples clearly show there is much more difference than you will ever find in the regional dialects of Serbo-Croatian.
>Yes, it indicates that they're neighbours.
Neighbours with the same language.
>Oh look, here comes the myth that "nations were invented in 19th century man, trust me". Do you really want to go the way of me disproving this communist lie?
I never mentioned the 19th century, nice strawman. Nations developed over time in a gradual process, like you didn't develop from a monkey, but a common ancestor, nations also developed from a common ancestor. In fact, you can still see nations developing even in modern times, like the mentioned Bosnians.
>I see a bunch of Slavic names.
And I find it especially ironic that the most "painfully obviously" Croatian name that features in Bosnian history, Hrvoje Hrvatinić, was a member of Serbian Orthodox Church.
He was a Roman catholic.
Again being disingenuous. When he comissions a Roman catholic work, he is doung it for his subjects, but when he comissions a not-even-orthodox book transliterated from Croatian script, he is obviously Serbian orthodox? I did find mention that he was supposed to be a member of the "Bosnian church", which was a heretical offshoot of... Roman catholicism. Who could have guessed it. And seeing how he was married to a Roman catholic and under patronage from a Roman catholic king, it seems prety clear to most what he was.
>The other way around. Go look up the dates.
What do you mean the other way around? The books aren't the same, it's two different things.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hval's_Codex
>it was copied from an original Glagolitic text, also evident from Glagolitic letters found in two places in the book.
Are you seriously saying that I'm being disingenuous, when your only counterargument to the fact that he couldn't read Croatian written in its native alphabet but could read cyrillic is that someone claimed a glagolitic original nobody has ever seen exists (sounds like clear Croat cope)?
>I did find mention that he was supposed to be a member of the "Bosnian church", which was a heretical offshoot of... Roman catholicism. Who could have guessed it. And seeing how he was married to a Roman catholic and under patronage from a Roman catholic king,
You fail to understand geopolitics and historical context.
This is early after the schism, and during when allegiance to Rome or Constantinople was more a matter of geopolitical orientation than of differences in doctrine. However this particular independent Bosnian church (which is again itself a proof of medieval separateness of Bosnia!) was quite divergent in doctrine and in rites and it doesn't really make sense to say it is a "heresy" of one or another. If anything, it can be historically traced to Bogomils - which sprang up in 10th century Buglaria. So historically their origins are indeed in East rathern than West. Later the territory of Bosnia was on all sided encroached by Roman Catholic rulers, while Constantinople was in decline since the 4th Crusade, so naturally, the only one who could get Bosnia back in line with official doctrine was Rome (and sent their own priests to Bosnia, which Bosnian rulers begrudgingly accepted, if only to avoid getting a direct crusade called on their arse). Note also that Albanians at the time, who were previously part of Byzantine Empire, also became large part Catholic, as Venetian (and French) influence pushed out Greek.
>And seeing how he was married to a Roman catholic and under patronage from a Roman catholic king
Geopolitics.
Henry I of France was married to Anna of Kiev, daughter of knyaz Yaroslav the Wise. Guess he must have been Orthodox himself.
>fact that he couldn't read Croatian written in its native alphabet but could read cyrillic
You got a source for that buddy?
>only counterargument
Yes, ignore the other ones I brought up.
>glagolitic original nobody has ever seen exists
The Zbornik wasn't just a transliteration of one piece of literature. Parts of it were transliterated, but it is indicative if rites from catholic Croats were written down in it.
>You fail to understand geopolitics and historical context
I think you're the one with these problems.
>This is early after the schism...
Irrelevant text. Now you're claiming what? That he was independent of both churches? A moment ago, he was orthodox to you. Either way, the Bosnian chrurch was closer to the catholic one than orthodox one, read on wikipedia why.
>Henry I of France was married to Anna of Kiev, daughter of knyaz Yaroslav the Wise. Guess he must have been Orthodox himself
Again irrelevant, since the schizm hadn't happened yet when they married.
But this is all far from the original point.
Fact is: (in a general sense) the only people clamouring about a Bosnian nation and Bosnian history and most of all a nonsensical Bosnian language, are Bosnian muslims. I hope it's self evident why.
