Any prospects for Yugoslavia making a comeback in the near future, do we think? Turtle Fan 20:48, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "comeback"? I mean technically-speaking, isn't this the proper name for the present-day "Republic of Serbia"? Jelay14 21:07, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
No, the proper name for the Republic of Serbia is the Republic of Serbia. The last rump Yugoslavia was dissolved in 2003. It became the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, which lasted until 2006. Now it's Serbia, Montenegro, and Kosovo. Turtle Fan 00:02, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I missed that page-ten news item. Last I checked, Serbia still called itself Yugoslavia. That was during its war with NATO and Kosovo. Jelay14 03:18, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I remember the war, then that the Hague tried Milosevic, and next thing I know Kosovo has seceded and apparently managed to make good on its secession. I missed Yugoslavia turning into "Serbia and Montenegro," then "Serbia and Montenegro" turning into "Serbia" and "Montenegro."
They happened in 2003 and 2006, respectively. Granted in each year there were rather more important things going on internationally, which would force these things off the front page; but the shitload of news kept me interested in following the news, and both years I watched the news quite closely and extensively. Somehow it never registered. Turtle Fan 04:54, November 30, 2009 (UTC)


Not sure I'd call this an inconsistency; I don't think I would. After all, there was indeed no such country as Yugoslavia in 1864. However, the name was coined in the late 1840s. It's comparable to Kurdistan today: There's no such nation, but there is a large nationalist bloc which would like that to change, and they've prepared a clearly defined set of borders for a Kurdish state, as th Yugoslavs had for Yugoslavia: borders that were quite close to those established in 1918. If I saw something stamped with "Made in Kurdistan," I'd find that pretty strange, but I'd know what it was talking about--and would know there was no point to checking my atlas for it.

Now the world was much, much bigger in the mid-nineteenth century than it is today, and the Confederacy and Balkans had no reason to study one another; all they had in common was that each happened to be located in the southeastern corner of its respective continent. Still, there must have been someone in Confederate intelligence who kept abreast of world news to a degree which would allow him to recognize the name. Turtle Fan 19:41, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with the murky origins of the concept of Yugoslavia, but were the musings of South Slavic intellectuals and the Illyrian Movement major headline-grabbers in the 1860s? Jelay14 22:10, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
They made their contributions to the continent-wide revolutionary wave of 1848. Many Americans in every region kept abreast of those. Did their revolution in particular stand out? I really couldn't say. Turtle Fan 22:42, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
This guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fisher_%28settler%29 could have explained it to the gentlemen of the Confederacy. But alas, he had left Texas for California during the Civil War. JudgeFisher (talk) 05:27, June 6, 2013 (UTC)