Is anyone else utterly unconvinced by the idea that the middle east would be peaceful if states were created along "natural" borders after WW1? Considering the amount of mixed ethnic areas, especially in big cities, surely there'd still be ethnic conflict. And even if the resulting states were fairly homogenous, an ethnic group happening to sit on a lot of resources will cause inter-state ethnic violence. The middle east would still be violent but in a different way.
>>907037
It's about more than just natural borders, but the administrative system in each state. The issue with the borders today is that they were drawn at the political convenience of London and Paris, which delegated their rule to their outposts in Damascus and Baghdad.
London and Paris came to dominate their respective nations through several centuries of political, cultural, economic, and military influence, but Damascus and Baghdad spent most of that same time as one of several competing cities all serving distant masters in Turkey, and later Europe.
So rather than leave behind a federal system like the U.S. where each state in the union handles its own affairs, the French and the British made nation-states in their own image where one capital city bent all others to its will.
This worked in smaller sized states like Jordan, where the capital was the nation more or less, but in Syria you have Damascus, Homs/Hama, Aleppo, and Raqqa and Deir-ez-zor, all cities that could be capitals in their own right but suddenly had to bow to the will of Damascus and its political elite. Same thing with Iraq. Strongarm dictators forced the arrangement to work with lots of bloodshed and under the table dealing, but now it's impossible.
>>907037
The question isn't whether it would eradicate violence, its would it be better or worse than it is right now? Considering that much of the conflicts are over land and territory, yes.
>>907037
They need some nationalism
>>908645
On what could they base it on ?
They have been dominated for 1500 years or so by now.
>>908654
There actually were a lot of successful nationalism movements that drew on the ancient near east but were all wiped out by pan Arabism (which is fascist esq. and came to prominence in the 1930s) Nasser originally was semi-pharonist and for a reunited Egypt-Sudan before he transitioned into pan-Arabism.
Israel is ironically the only country in the region that was able to "revive the past through nationalism" so to speak. The reasons the others failed are varied. n
Reality is that federal models would have worked well for every state but Britain and France kept them precariousl on purpose, so their rulers/governments would need to rely on then for support. It's was colonialism without having the need to declare them colonies
>>907037
Looking at the last 50 years, if they were made upon ethnic/religious lines, we'd likely have less ethnic conflict and war.
No guarantee though, but to say it doesn't matter if you put hardcore Muslims with hardcore Christians is stupid.
>>907037
The British and French weren't being stupid when they drew the borders, they were being geostrategically brilliant. For hundreds of years, the Ottoman Empire was a threat to European power, by either working against European interests, or in some cases serving a existential threat to European states. Once the Ottomans were finally defeated after WW1, the British and French weren't going to allow the Ottoman Empire to rebuild itself and repeat those threats again. So they purposefully divided the Middle East and North Africa among cultural/ethnic lines to keep the people fighting against themselves instead of uniting under another common banner and rebuilding the empire. And for the past 100 years, no country in the Middle East has ever been able to secure enough power to become an existential threat to Europe. The same strategy was used in Africa, which also has failed to ever unite into a major continental power.
In the eyes of the Western world, it's better for Middle Eastern countries to be fighting either their neighbors or themselves, than to be fighting the West. As long as global trade still flows, and the strongmen in power play ball with the West, that's all anyone really cares about.
Unfortunately for the common Middle Eastern person, as long as this status quo remains, their lives, culture, and countries will never advance to the same level as the Western world. Systematized oppression.
It's a double edged sword. One one hand the people suffer. On the other, if the Middle East was to straighten itself out and unite, there would probably be a new form of successor to the Islamic Caliphate and Ottoman Empire. When that happens, the stage gets set again for the 18-19th centuries of Imperial warfare. There's already enough regional hegemons that the West has to deal with (Russia, China, Iran, EU, USA). The West doesn't want to add any more to the mix than necessary. Which is why they'll never allow the Middle East (or Africa) to unfuck itself.
>>908645
>>908654
>>908697
We were Assyrians/Sumerians/Mesopotamians and shit
>>910116
But that's exactly what they were
>>907037
Everyone who tried to fix it is dead.
>>910064
...how true is this?
>>908697
>It's was colonialism without having the need to declare them colonies
The term you're looking for here is Neo-colonialism. Isn't just in the Middle-East either, look at Africa also.
inb4 hurr nigs gonna nig etc etc
>>910526
I have no concrete proof to back up my theory; no Western government would ever admit to being that devious. Instead, their story is that the Middle East was redrawn to fit British and French resource interests (to the victor goes the spoils) and that they can't go back and redraw the borders correctly because of international laws written by the UN, they cannot undermine the current "legitimate" powers. But look through the lens of the realist school of thought, and my theory makes sense. Divide and conquer. In a globalized world, you don't have to physically control territory to have an empire. You just have to have influence on their politics and economy/world market.
>International Relations major
>>910526
Not true they wanted to divide the spoils.
Ottoman empire by the end of 19th century was shithole kept alive only for sake of balance of power.
>>910064
Middle East even united wouldnt be any threat to Europe not now, impossible 100 years ago.
Ottoman werent able to defeat few small poor european states, how do you think they would fare against real powers
>>910710
>What is Gallipoli
>>910710
>>910699
Threats are treated as very real possibilities. England and France were the primary hegemons of Europe. Their power depended on Europe as a whole being stable and markets flowing. For hundreds of years the Ottoman Empire was knocking on Europe's doorstep and at times physically entered Europe. Did France really face the possibility of the Ottoman's conquering it? Probably not, but they still didn't want them on their doorstep. Plus the Ottoman's controlled the Bosphorus, and the Middle East itself was a massive hub for international trade, which gave the Ottoman's massive leverage that they used to their advantage to block European interests.
In every way you look at it, the Ottoman Empire was a thorn in Europe's side. It's just how international competition goes.
As far as today, would a new Middle Eastern empire have a chance at conquering Europe? Answer is still no, but it would be a massive headache. Better to prevent the headache from occurring than dealing with it after it's gained strength.
The Divide and Conquer strategy works out in Europe's best interests: strategically the ME doesn't pose an existential threat, markets still flow, Western markets control and exploit resources to make bank, neo-colonial political influence still in effect.
>>910710
Not him, but the threat wouldn't be straightforward and military so much as unified political will to be able to become a major player at whatever bargaining table involves trade and resources passing through, let alone oil.
Think of the Oil Embargo Saudi Arabia managed to head in the 90's
>>910740
Badly planned landing.
>>910746
By 18th century Ottoman empire was decaying state.
France that you name had even alliance with Ottomans.
In 19th century tables completely shifted, look at Greek rebellion, France and Britain helped them only after very heavy pressure by public, political strategists wanted to help Ottomans out of fear of Russian Influence.
In 1850s Ottomans were as relevant as Sweden, corpse kept alive out of fear from Russia.
Again France and UK jumped in Crimean war to save them.
Ottomans controlled Bosphorus because it was prefferable to big players to control it.
>>910752
That thing would be constantly on verge of collapse.
Democracy wouldnt survive because of lands backwardness
How would you appease islamists at the same time while making that nation not backwards shithole,
Sunni's, would need to be on constant watch from shia, alawites and other sects.
West's thirst for oil would rip it apart if it was on other side of wire.
>>910746
If empires were so keen on divide and conquer why is India country?
It was easier to manage it that way, to divide spoils and because they just didnt care very much about inhabitants.
>>910809
Many of these problems came about or were greatly exacerbated by the instability set in place to begin with.
>>910784
You can have a working business partnership with a rival. Relationships come and go, but interests remain the same. You're right, Europe played a balancing act between the Ottoman and Russian empires for a long time. And the Ottoman Empire was a shell of its former glory by the end of WW1, but the possibility of it regrowing in a new form still existed. Which is why Britain and France carved it up to make sure that wouldn't happen.
I don't think we're really disagreeing on much
>>910821
Only way that could become something, if arabs had leader three times ataturk.
Keep in mind they were less educated adn less developed than turks.
Now, Turks are homogeneous, Arabs are much less so divided in many sects with even large christian minority.
Hatred between them always existed, Iraq sunni's celebrated when christians were massacred, so it is not something new.
Democracy wouldnt work, it would be matter of time before islamists would be elected, with them comes oppression of minority sects.
As we see in Syria, that would be just what any oil hungry power would want.
>>910845
They took it because they wanted colonies not divide and conquer.
Ottoman Empire was shell of its former glory 100 years earlier than WW1.
Every ethnic group other than turks hated it.
Brits and French knew what they wanted since WW1 started, if they even tried to rise western backed greek army would steamroll through anatolia, and colonies would be again established.
>>910818
Are they comparable? I'm thinking, middle east has natural resources that are easier to harvest with a broken nation, while india has better human resources which are easier to harvest from a unified one.
Sage for crackpot theory
>>910064
This is a really interesting theory, but I think you're giving the British and French governments waaaaaaay too much credit.
Is this even a question?
1800 to 1900 - peaceful in the Middle East
European colonization to now - a lot of tension and tyranny in the Middle East
>>910818
Didn't happen. Look at a map of India from the colonial era, it was all divided up into presidencies and princely states and all sorts, most of the borders were relics of earlier conflicts as the British conquered the subcontinent, or those normalized by a completely dominant Britain.
>>911036
No...
They're easier and cheaper to harvest by a stable nation.
But this nation would want to sell them, and this nation could negotiate as a peer.
If you want to steal oil, it's easier when there is no stability. In this way, most of the costs are paid by the locals, most of the profits are made by foreigners.
