Talk:Pan-Slavism

Dear wikipedists, I ask Your community for independent and collaborative review of my amendments made today from IP 193.84.36.110 (I am not a wikipedist), which are permanently removed by FkpCascais, who alleged me for the anti-Russian sentiment. My real name is assoc. prof. Vojtěch Merunka, Ph.D. (vmerunka@gmail.com) I have many professional contacts to all Slavic countries (also in Russia and Serbia, dear FkpCascais :-) ) and I hope my adding (regardless it was strong) is important and based on proven sources. I believe, that Wikipedia respects the position of neutrality and does not serve in any propaganda, which tries removes discomfortable information in order to make "the reality better".

This is my text:

Since the Congress in Prague in 1848, there is an on-going conflict between the concept of panslavism in Russia and in small European nations speaking Slavic languages. Russian Empire tried to misuse Slavism as a tool for spreading its power and governance (autocracy and Orthodox Church). The other Slavic nations refused to the ethnic and political merger with the Russia, but wanted to have a strong ally in their own independent cultural and political development (see Austro-Slavism). That some politicians in Russia do not understand till today, because speak about betrayal of Slavic idea, slavish thinking, and fascism.

Political panslavism lasts from 60s of the 19th century after the lost Crimean War, when the Russian elite, who previously had uncritically admired and imitated Western civilisation, suddenly turned 180 degrees and started to hate and blame the West for Russia's military setbacks. It is well described in the propagandistic book of Nikolay Danilevsky: Russia and Europe^[1], where it is rendered the decadent West in opposition to the God's blessed Russian civilization. Today, this 150 years old propaganda continues extended by antisemitism. Panslavism is popular in the large immigration from the former USSR to Slavic countries of the European Union. It expresses fierce populism, nostalgia for the Soviet era, and strong anti-Western sentiments.^[2][3]

I have more sources. For example other documents from the XII. Pan-slavic congress in Moscow, May 2015 and books by the current pan-slavic president Oleg Platonov, see his books at http://www.labirint.ru/authors/35471/  

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:8D1E:F5DE:85B7:6B64:678C:901 (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The whole article is completely distorted and full of wrong information especially on a situation in the XXth century. ex, in Poland the pan-slavism has never been an issue, it's not even discussed or supported by any major or minor party. The only considerable possibility for a Western pan-Slavic state was in the XIth century and since then no such idea in Polish history was ever taken into consideration.

I have heard that there were some talks on West-Slavic federation between Czechoslovakia and Poland during the exile of both governments in London. I heard it several years in some documentary on Polish TV but can't say anymore about it. It really hasn't been ever a particularly popular idea. Also, I think that Pilsudski wanted some sort of federation (with Poland dominating it) of former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth states (eg. Belarus, Ukraine). Eventually, he simply occupied some of those areas but otherwise they might've become parts of the USSR which he didn't want. I can't pick the sources so I'm not writing it in Wikipedia but if someone were really interested the topic, they might do some research. (added by 85.221.134.193)

Never heard about the Czechoslovakian thing. Show a ref. Pavel Vozenilek 17:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

The article talks of pan-slavism as a serious option considered by many as an alternative which isn't the case. Any comparaison with pan-germanism or pan-arabism is out of touch since we speak different languages rather than different dialects as it is the case in these two cases. Anyways a major clean-up of this article is needed.

Slavic languages are so alike that they might be easily considered dialects if it were what one wanted. The region boundary (south-east-west) may be a bit strong but within the particular subdivisional areas the languages are pretty comprehensible for each others' speakers (still, much more in writing than speaking but it can be trained). (added by 85.221.134.193)

Dialects are mutually intelligible, sort of. For me Slavic languages are not, without lot of effort (exception: Czech - Slovak). But I am not language gifted, YMMW. Pavel Vozenilek 17:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Furthermore, the idea of Pan-Slavism was present in various forms before 1815, in was the strongest in Russia and in what was Yugoslavia. The 815 was only a turning point. Anyone with some knowledge on pre-1815 Pan-Slavism can add some info on the article. I have too little information on that some I can' do that.

We also need Pan-Germanism, Pan-Arabism, and whatever else works under romantic nationalism. The 'English Speaking Union' is not the equivalent - Anglo-Americanism? I dunno. --MichaelTinkler

I don't know that there is pan-Germanism in the way that there was pan-Slavism, perhaps because Germany was its own empire when this stuff broke out. That said, I think that there might now be a type of pan-German movement based on the resentment of losing two world wars (and one world cup) -- unfortunately, this also seems to tie into many of the the right-wing German nationalist groups, some of which are so extreme that they are illegal under Germany's constitution. Interestingly enough, the US would allow them...! JHK

No, the stuff broke out during the Napoleonic Wars. Pan-Germanism refers to the German nationalism that allowed Bismarckian Prussia to take over its neighbouring states. The Second Reich resulted; Germany was only an Empire in a stable form from 1870, before which it was a mess of kingdoms (and before 1815 it was "united" under the superficial Holy Roman Empire and its leaders, the Hapsburgs of Austria; this was the First Reich).

Pan-Germanism is not in any way equal to Pan-Slavism. Germans are just one Germanic nation, and what is called "Pan-Germanism" is nothing more than German nationalism one level below Pan-Slavism. It is actually one the same level as Russian nationalism would be. 'Real' Pan-Germansims, on the same level as the actual Pan-Slavism, would be a movement trying to unite all Germanic people: Germans, Scandinavians, Dutch, English... However such a movement never existed and the very idea sounds totally unrealistic. The fact that Pan-Slavism on the other hand was a real, credible movement, whit much support in all of the respective countries makes it pretty unique. This uniqueness should be emphasized and, if possible, its causes explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.78.46 (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Pan-Slavism" has sometimes been a very violent and aggressive movement, often based on racial believes where it should have been based on language and culture. When Pan-Slavism became dominated and captured by Russia, it became really bad, assassinating people was an appreciated method, whenever suitable...

Regarding "Pan-Germanism": This expression is misleading, as the English word "German" is definitely not used in the same sense on the European continent and gives a wrong connotation. In particular, it is not a German word for "Deutsch" (in the Northern dialect Plattdeutsch "Dutch"), but a somewhat artificial creation. The English expression "German" had been derived from Latin sources for historical comtemplations and examinations, regarding ancient Roman Empire. The Brits did so, while French scientists and authors preferred "allemand", when not precisely talking about ancient history such as Ceasars invasion of "Gallica" and "Germania superior". At a certain point in history, the expression in old Latin sources was used by British salesmen to distiguish between the Netherlands (Deutsch - Dutch), where the Rhine ends in the Sea, and the upper Rhineland (Deutsch - "German"), when trading goods. Step by step, English authors, historians and politicians, as well as ordinary people, joined in this use of the newly coined expression. So in fact, this expression "German" is an artificial British creation, mixing up the original content of the Latin sources with modern misconceptions. This leads to even more misconceptions, and these misconceptions affect similar creations of words, such as "Pan-Slavism". "Pan-Slavism" in a positive sense would be based on language and culture, but definitely not on violence, not on racism or nationalism, and especially not on any Polish or Russian colonial domination. We should try to keep all of these contents separate. 88.66.67.29 (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

german ≠ germanic Politonno (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

many slavs would not be willing to participate in any kind of pan-slavic movement. just look at the situation of the serbs and croats...

Gringo300 12:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. I would be willing to participate in such a movement with my fellow Slavs. -- slavicmanifestdestiny193

Tricky thing, as Russia and Poland always tried o dominate the movement - and tended to pervert it. So today, which side would you like to join: Great Russia, "mother of all Slavs", or the free Republic of Ukraine? Yes, this question seems to be quite unfair. However: True "Pan-Slavism", in the best sense, should be based on langugae and culture not on war between brothers. 88.66.67.29 (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just because you disagree and would join such a movement does not mean that it would gain wide spread popularity. You are ignoring tensions all through out Eastern Europe between all slavs (Ukraine-Russia, Poland-Russia, Hungarians-Romanians, Serbs and Croats etc). I think we must also be careful not to make too strong comparisons between Pan Germanism and Pan Slavism. I would argue that while Pan Germanism is largely based on an idea of some kind of single German race, Pan Slavism is based on a multinational idea, more comparable to something like Pan Western Europeanism , a concept without any historical roots in Western Europe --Colin MacDonald

Since when Hungarians and Romanians are Slavs? And sometimes personal point of view is more representative than "official" and "acceptable" ones.Anyway,Colin,could you kindly tell me (personal,of course:)) why today's European union cannot be called just poor-covered Pan-western idea, dominating over whole continent? Yes,Poland and other eastern countries are members of union now,but do they really participate or simply follow the general path of much greater powers,like Germany or France? And that is pan-westernism. --All the best,Simon

The European Union is an economic union, with no roots in race. Poland or any other Eastern European country don't have to join, its their choice. Granted Magyars and Romanians are not slavs, but is the personal opinion of one Slavic nationalist going to over rule ethnic tension all over Eastern Europe? I don't think so. What kind of pan-western European ideal are you talking about? The nations within the EU fight over everything, including the common agricultural policy and the spread of the Euro dollar. Are you telling me that Panslavism is really a reality today just because "slavicmsnifestdestiny193" says he will join such a movement? Be realistic the movement is long dead. -ColinMacDonald

Colin MacDonald: You have shown your ignorance on the matter, so your opinions are automatically discredited.

You classified Romanians and Hungarians as slavs. Anyone with a most BASIC knowledge of history knows that they are 'Romanised' Dacians and Magyars, resp.

Secondly you aliken pan-slavism to pan-western europeanism. Pan _slavism is based on actual common origins and culture of slavic people. Western europe comprises of Germanics, Iberians, Romans, etc. No commonality except location

Thirdly pan -slavism is not dead. Yes the oomph is gone , but the sense of brotherhood remains. I accept that any political unioin is out of the question, and history has shown that the slavs are unfortunatley more contecnt on destroying each other than helping..

I think the new movement now is Europeanism. This is based on certain genetic, cultural and circumstantial reasons. Europeans are the most closely related people, compared to any other region. Genetically all very similiar because europe was re-populated after the last ice age entirely from two refugia - balkans and iberia.

Secondly there is the growing discntent amongst europeans against migrations from Africa, middle east etc, that are decaying the cultural entegrity of europe.

You are correct, Pan-Slavism is not dead. And it need not be a political idea either, it can be a cultural one. I suggest that Pan-Slavism can play a role in a future peaceful Europe, imagine the Balkans today if narrow minded regionalism (I refuse to call it nationalism) had not taken such a hold?

Still pains me to see the gulf between Serbs and Croats for example, how did we ever get to this stage of hating our own kind?

Eventhough Juraj Krizanic the Panslavist was a Croat, and the idea of Yugoslavia was a Croatian one, Croats didn't identify themselves as Slavs, but Goths, in the WW2, Croats being on Germany's side it was mostly because of shame being a second grade citizen in the Third Reich. Being Slavs would bring them more in relation with the Serbs, which in their eyes would make the Croats an easy target for assimilation in the South Slav, Yugoslav nation (hence the identical language, name giving, similar folklore to other fellow Slavs). Even today there is a slight antipathy in the rightwing, concerning the Slavs, mostly because of Yugoslavia - since they lived for ca. 900 years in Hungary and Habsburg Empire later on, they feel more sympathy for the "Germanic Europe" instead of "Slavic one". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.179.29 (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

God Save the Tsar 03:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

@ Simon, you consider Europeans "genetically all very similiar because europe was re-populated after the last ice age entirely from two refugia - balkans and iberia". This is not true, as there had been continous settlement in the very core of Europe, a "green belt" (no glaciers, i.e. fertile green land in summer, however with a shortend vegetation period, especially compared to the era of man-made climate change) between the Pyrenees and Ukraine. The area in the center of Europe - namely France and Germany - had been continuously populated in that time. This has been proven again and again by numerous archeological findings, and we still keep on getting new, more precise information on this. Okay, unfortunately, England had been covered with glaciers and also had been a part of the continent, in fact a "part of France" in that time. The Rhine river ended East of the highlands and mountains of to todays Scotland, which had been a complete ice desert, covered with massive glaciers, as the Gulf Stream had collapsed before... 88.66.67.29 (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Poland never was very enthusiastic about its Slavic roots, anyway, and this attitude regularily found its expressions, as well in the ideology of sarmatism, as in the hostilities towards the culture of its Slavic neighbours like Ukrainians oder Belarusians.

This is strange - it's the first time I heard that Poland was 'not very enthusiastic' about it's Slavic origins. Where had the Poles denied they are Slavs? And how do you measure enthusiasm? Of course, unlike Russians, Poles never tried to unite ALL Slavs under their guidance, so I guess they indeed were less enthusiastic then Russian Empire of the Soviet Union. Second, how is sarmatism an expression of some 'anti-Slavism', and how again this can be used to explain Polish hostility towards Ruthenians (but not Lithuanians or themselves, for example?). This entire sentence makes little sense and unless proper academic references are provided, it should be deleted as unverifiable POV.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I believe Voyevoda's sentence is just a reaction to Molobo's severe trolling. It was Molobo who denied any connection of the Poles to the Slavs and routinely changed "Slavic languages" to "Eastern and South Slavic languages", so as not to include Polish into the category. By the way, Piotrus, I hope you do not follow Molobo's way when you call this typical and quite harmless content dispute "vandalism" on the Polish notice-board. If you do, please take care. Trolling is strongly frowned upon. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Two wrongs don't make a right. And note that the notice at PWNB notes 'Articles needing attention' and sais nothing about vandalism. Would you dispute that this article needs attention? Not that Voyevoda additions are any better then worst of Molobo's, and I think you called his actions with the 'v' word quite often.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your edit summary lists it as an "article vandalised". Please don't think we are blind. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 05:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, Ghirla, perhaps you should check your eyes. Or are you confusing me with Voyevoda? If so, I'd think we are both offended :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Of course sarmatism was an expression of insufficient identification of Poles with their Slavic derivation. What else should have caused this feverish seeking for other roots? The Polish hostility towards Ruthenians showed itself in the discrimination of their belief, language and traditions. Ukrainians and Belarusians were called "bydlo" and were often forced to change the street side, when a Pole came along. All that is not being told in Poland so the Poles sincerely wonder, why things like Volhynia 1944 occured. Voyevoda 08:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

History by Voyevoda is fascinating, but care to provide any references backing your POV?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am still waiting for any citations. Otherwise this original research will be deleted.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

In fact, Polish nationalists massacred about 2 million Ukrainians during 1918 und 1920, with support from France and England, of course. Main target was to avert an independent Ukrainian nation, eliminating Ukrainian population with a focus on "Intelligenzia", i.e. preferably killing educated people and than killing usual people as "appropriate" and as in reach. This shows that Polish nationalism and Polish racism might be very enthusiastic about Panslavism, but only under total Polish domination, rule or even better, total military command. Additional problem is religious: Poland always claims to be ultra-catholic, while most slavic people are orthodox. Therefore the killing of orthodox priest has been an important task in the eyes of Polish nationalists. Nevertheless, Polish elite always claimed the Polish nation to be the best of all slavic nations. Fun fact: Nobody is able to define what "slavic" truely might be, apart from similarities in slavic langugages. This is not a surprise when you look at the timeline. In fact a small group of "slavic" invaders started dominating gallo-illyric population not earlier than 6th to 8th century. "Slavisation" of Europe is relatively young and, apart from Polish or Russian made massacres, was rather based on making people share invaders' langugage than killing the original inhabitants of Central Europe. 88.66.67.29 (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would like to discuss the use of this word. I changed it to "countries with slavic national languages", which I think is much more precise. Somebody changed it back using the argument "languages have nothing [!] to do with this, slavic origin means founded and mostly inhabited by Slavic peoples". Now, in my opinion the definion of "Slavic people" is "people speaking a Slavic language" and we are back at languages, which justifies the phrase I introduced. Any counter-argument? Nahabedere 09:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not so much a counter though the term "origins" is better. It's true that language is the only thing which unites Slavic people but then it's the only thing that unites anyone anywhere at all, unless they are united by a surviving phenomenon, such as a religion (maybe the Jews are a good example, original Hebrew fell into disuse centuries before the birth of Christ but diasporans all over the world maintained their faith). From an individual viewpoint, it is possible to say you are Czech, or Russian etc. without knowing a single word of the language: supposing a Czech couple move to the USA and raise their two children speaking to them entirely in English; this does actually happen, and the children may still feel Czech, or Czech-American, but without the language to pass down, it is unlikely that this practice will survive three generations (of Czechs only marrying other Czechs who have lost their language). Meanwhile, looking at it from the angle of an entire group of people, let us take the Rumelians of Bulgaria, united since the creation of the modern Bulgarian republic. Supposing the Rumelians claimed that they were NOT Slavic (which they don't) but descended from a group of people to occupy the Balkans some centuries earlier, called, the Rumelians, then the only way that they would have converted language to the point that their original language has been erased would be for some Slavic presence among them. Now, as there is no region today in the Slavic language countries where the majority claim to be non-Slavic and a small group of Slavs (all be it 2%) can claim to have continued their Slavic identity, it is clear that the people mixed and one group has assimilated the other! If the Slavs were originally a smaller group and now the communal name for the people is the same as that of the larger group (ie. Rumelians - bearing in mind this is only an example), one might be forgiven for assuming that the 2% Slavs were dissimilated by the 98% Rumelians, but given that it was the Rumelians who abandoned their languages, it is fairer to say that they became Slavic. So, wherever there is a Slavic language community, be it the whole of Slovakia, or the pockets of Sorbs in Germany, or the Krashovans of Romania, you can be sure that there is a line of descent in the Slavs of the first millennium AD even if this trace is thin. --Evlekis 13:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are rather describing the dark sides of an ideology included in "Pan-Slavism": Whereever people live, that have any origin claimed to be "Slavic" or who's ancestors had spoken the language of Orthodox mission in Eastern Europe, Pan-Slavism declares this piece of land to be "truely Slavic soil". This includes areas that became "truely Slavic soil" due to Russian settlement policy, please take a look at the Baltics. Massive Russian domination over a non-Slavic population, step by step pushed into the role of a "weird" minority under "good Slavic rule". Original population had been killed, deported or suppressed, and forced to speak Russian. According to Russia, the Baltics therefore still are "Slavic soil". However, original population in the Baltics never accepted "Russification" of their countries, while Pan-Slavistic ideologists still wish to eliminate this original population by various means. As Russia had been the most successfull continental colonial power in Europe, an excessive "slavification" had always been one of the major goals of Russian nationalism and imperialism. In fact, this can been seen and checked in detail almost everywhere in Eastern Europe, as it holds true for a lot of regions that became overrun, looted and annexed. By the way, there is a striking example in very modern times: Take a look at the map and see what has happended to former Prussia, especially to Kaliningrad region. Population had been killed or deported, Russian settlement policy has been implemented for decades, and surprise, surprise, this region is "Slavic soil of mother Russia" now. Only nation being completely opposed to this is Poland, because they have an anti-Russian conception of Pan-Slavism: A Pan-Slavism under strict Polish domination and rule. Related racial and colonial aspects to be included... 88.66.67.29 (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.princeton.edu/~gradconf/index_files/papers/Babiracki.pdf
  • In Pan-Slavism on Sun Jul 16 21:32:37 2006, 404 Not Found
  • In Pan-Slavism on Mon Jul 17 17:57:38 2006, 404 Not Found
  • In Pan-Slavism on Thu Jul 27 01:26:58 2006, 404 Not Found

maru (talk) contribs 05:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

It should also be emphasized that Pan-Slavism also had a reactionary nature, especially in the Carpathian Basin where (especially Slovak Pan-Slavists like Stúr or Hurban-Vajansky) they wanted to subjugate the whole area to Czarist Russia and in support of the Habsburg monarchy, they fought against Kossuth's freedom fighters in 1848-49.Árpád 07:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Leaders ofSeptember uprising - Stur, Hurban and Hodza wanted from Habsburg court indepndent Slovak duchy- It was their official proposal. Stur idea of all Slavic states under Czarist Russia was motivate by that that Russia was in that time only independent Slavic country - that´s all. Don´t manipulate with informations like these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.154.233 (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

How this is connected to pan-slavic ideas? Probably it is Russification policy that triggered the protests?--Dojarca 20:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Saying basically that Poles were never interested in pan-Slavism and all saw it as an agent of Russian imperialism is a bit much. It was never a widespread, popular movement, but it had significant support among some segments of the academic and political elite in the 19th century, and was debated fairly stridently. For the pro-pan-slavism side, I'm thinking of people like Ignacy Rakowiecki, Zorian Dołęga-Chodakowski, Henryk Rzewski, Michal Grabowski, Waclaw Maciejowski, and so on. --Delirium (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Poles do not have any doubts that they are Slavs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.199.44 (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, Poland was not interested in panslavism per se (as in Russian movement), but in other versions of unity of Slavs. For example, here. Main point were Slavic unity yes, but without Russia. Szopen (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

BTW, there IS ONE very small political panslavic party in Poland: "Zwiazek Słowiański". It started in local elections in województwo podlaskie and got huge 0.32% of votes. Nevertheless, one small party is more than "none", as it is put in article. Szopen (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Pan-slavism was NOT promoted by the Soviet Union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.199.44 (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Disagree: Historical Dictionary of Poland, 966-1945 -Page 419 autor: Jerzy Jan Lerski, Piotr Wróbel, Richard J. Kozicki - 1996 Pan-Slavism was used again by Soviet propaganda. --Molobo (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Obviously the USSR didn't promote the rise of one ethnicity over another. That is contradictory to the ideology.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.150.53 (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

The pact with Hitler was very contradictory to the ideology as well. Additionally, Stalin always talked about the "peace-loving Slavic nations, united in the Soviet Union" - and attacked almost all nations surounding his "Soviet Union", including such "peace-loving Slavic nations" such as Ukraine, Poland and Slovakia. By the way: Official language under Stalin's rule always had been Russian, of course. Multiculturalism was quite limited in this Russian "Red Slavic Empire" when it came to essential questions of racism, ethnic domination, geo-politics and imperial expansion. 88.66.67.29 (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Still, they used it when it was to their advantage. They ceded the Crimea to Ukraine as a token of Slavic friendship after WWII. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not really ceded, they just moved it from one administrative region to another. Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union at the time. Zazaban (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The assertion that the Soviet Union used panslavism as a political tool is absurd. For one, Stalin was not a Slav.

Nope. Stalin used anything he got in hands. Of course "Soviet Union" used nationalism, racism and separatism whereever helpful for their imperial expansion and colonial projects. Remember his words about "the great national war of our peace-seeking slavic brother nations against fascist aggression", shortly after Stalin signed a pact with Hitler and assaulted Ukraine, Finland, the Baltics and Poland, massacring and deporting millions of people... Fun Fact: "Stalin was not a Slav" - Hitler was no German either. Mathilde Ludendorff even claimed, Hitler was a "homosexual Czech Jew, raised in Austria". Stalin had been an orthodox priest apprentice once, and so cynical in his attitudes that he used anything for his advantage he could get in his hands. Let's be realistic: These were very weird people, full of contradictions, weren't they?

Venice ceased to exist as a republic in 1797, Italy was about to form. So there is something wrong with the introduction. --2.245.148.227 (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Venice had been the predominant power in Northern Italy and surounding shores including Slovenia and Croatia over centuries. The new nation, modern Italy, simply continued what Venice had done before. 88.66.67.29 (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is related to that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The deletion discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Pan-Slavism. Krakkos (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

In the section "Pan-Slavism in Russia" it uses the word "regime" instead of "government" in order to describe the current governing body of the Russian Federation. I think that the word "government" would be a more accurate and less biased word to use in this situation and that "regime" has a emotional bias and in this case it would probably also used with political motivations 2600:1007:A105:48E4:8F03:D4D3:D36B:D0C7 (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

This part of the article seems to be biased, as there are some weird details, presented without sound sources. In particular, there is no explanation why a Habsburg, or anyone else, should be in favor of a Serbian prince to be ruler of Slovakia. There should be more facts and less "strong believes" in the good sake of pan-slavic nationalism. What is a Serbian aristocrate good for in Slovakia and maybe even the Czech lands? What is the plot? Will he convert to catholizism to win the hearts of Slovaks, or even become a crypto-protestant to please (anti-Habsburg) Czech elite? What about the Polish minority in Austria-Hungary? All of this doesn't make any sense. 88.66.67.29 (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Pan-slavism is am ethnic ideology. Most of these kind of ideologies do not talk about uniting explicitly countries, but about ethnic groups, and that includes parts of countries, not necessarily an entire geopolitical entity, because countries are ethnically diverse.

The main map is about today's countries, and doesn't represent the original pan-slavism. I suggest to use this map, which excludes non-slavic territories included in the other map. Russia is not exclusevely Russian. Crimea is culturally tatar (turkic), southern Slovakia is hungarian (Finno-Ugric), northern Serbia (Vojvodina) is ethnically diverse, and Kosovo is albanian. The istria peninsula and its coasts are istriot and istro-romanian (reason why Italy demanded it after WW1), the Sudetenland was german by the time of the peak of pan-slavism, and in southern Bessarabia and northern Dobruja there's a significant bulgarian minority, which is not shown in the map

Politonno (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pan-Slavism is a contemporary ideology and a contemporary main map is perfectly fine. All the countries represented on the map have Slavic-speaking majorities. A geopolitical unification of these countries would most likely not result in renouncing territories with non-Slavic majorities, and vice-versa for other countries with a Slavic diaspora. –Vipz (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The original Pan-slavist ideology is not contemporary. Pan-slavism originated in the wave of nationalisms in the middle of the 19th century, it was one of the key points on the formation of Yugoslavia, a currently extinct country, and has low relevance today.

The original Pan-slavism was an ethnic nationalist ideology, it dreams of uniting ethnicities, not a political movement of uniting geopolitcal entities.

The fact is that that map is not appropriate. "Majority" is a relative term. Serbian is not a majority in Kosovo, and Bulgarian is not s majority in the bulgarian turkish communities. And the map of today's countries doesn't represent other slavic peoples who would be included in the original Pan-slavism such as Sorbs and bessarabian bulgarians. An ethnic map is more appropriate to describe an ethnic nationalist ideology that has never been the basis for geopolitcal unions between current countries in their geopolitical borders. The pan-slavism didn't want to unite current countries (see Yugoslavism). Current "pan-slavist" ideologies are not uniform nor homogenous in their objective, they have no academic value, there's no consensus on their views, so we can't talk about an ideology per se, a statement that this very article comments. Politonno (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pan-Slavism may have low relevance today, but it still exists nevertheless, hence me describing it contemporary. Your suggested alternative map does not represent geographic distribution of ethnic Slavs (and even then, not much is common between them apart from belonging to the same language family), but one showing geographic distribution of Slavic languages. Furthermore, this specific version of the map seems to have been created just to separate Serbo-Croatian along ethnic lines, contrary to the idea of Pan-Slavism. –Vipz (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, pan-slavism is not an ideology anymore, the term can be used to describe any kind of idea to unite any slavic peoples, countries or alliances but, as the article says, there's no more pan-slavist ideology after WW1 with academic value.

I suggested an etno-linguistical map because it defines better the pan-slavic objectives than modern country borders.

The map I cited differentiates between all serbian dialects (bosnian, Croatian and serbian). Those linguistical varieties coincide with real ethnic groups. The whole point of pan-slavism was to unite the slavs. Could use other maps? Yeah, but they should be ethno-linguistical, not political. Politonno (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply