Are the Sykes-Picot borders that bad?

[Caspoi]

So the proper solution would have been to ethnically separate everyone out? Well, it's a nice idea, but (as I keep pointing out) it's damned near impossible. How does one draw an effective map of Africa when one has limited geographical/ethnic knowledge. Even if one does, drawing a border involves a lot more than simply drawing a line; people will be left on either side who do not like the line either for irredentist or personal reasons.

The matter was so complicated that when such a practice was tried in Europe in 1919 all the powers could manage was a series of 'best guess' options, most of which were subsequently overturned by the course of history. Only in 1945 did Europe actually manage anything like a clean up procedure, and there it was only achieved through mass population movement; much of it involuntary and in cases genocidal.

I can understand that, but you previous post seemed to suggest that the colonizers were not responsible for their own mistakes (because while perfect borders may have been unachievable better ones certainly were possible), I appologize if I missunderstood.

 

[DoomBunny]

I can understand that, but you previous post seemed to suggest that the colonizers were not responsible for their own mistakes (because while perfect borders may have been unachievable better ones certainly were possible), I appologize if I missunderstood.

Really, I don't think they are. The solution wasn't brilliant, but a better one wasn't available, and it was very much the decision of the locals to carry out things like the Rwandan Genocide.

 

[bz249]

Yes, but it would have prevented a lot of Nationalistic suffering.

It would have also required foresight- probably a good reason they never did it.

That place have yet to develep a "proper" nationalism.
I mean the basic idea is that you take care of your fellow nationals irrespective of their class/religion/place of living, because you belong to the same nation. This reduce (in best case eliminate) the inward conflicts, but as a side effect it multiplies the warfighting potential outwards (that's why the tiny-whiny Netherlands was able to check the Spanish and later the French in the 16-18th century and that's why revolutionary France and the Germans able to wreck havoc all over Europe).

In the Near/Middle East Turkey and Israel advanced to this stage, but everywhere else it is more like tribalism (anyone outside the village is an enemy) so an even more backward stage.

 

[olm]

The matter was so complicated that when such a practice was tried in Europe in 1919 all the powers could manage was a series of 'best guess' options, most of which were subsequently overturned by the course of history. Only in 1945 did Europe actually manage anything like a clean up procedure, and there it was only achieved through mass population movement; much of it involuntary and in cases genocidal.

In 1919 powers simply prioritized cutting down former Central-Powers over ethnic self-determination. It not like nobody realized that Czechoslovakia would have whole bunch of Germans and Hungarians in it. Also in Europe it was perfectly feasible to do plebiscites on such issues, after all that's how Danish-German border was determined, the fact that this wasn't done everywhere was intentional.

 

[bz249]

In 1919 powers simply prioritized cutting down former Central-Powers over ethnic self-determination. It not like nobody realized that Czechoslovakia would have whole bunch of Germans and Hungarians in it. Also in Europe it was perfectly feasible to do plebiscites on such issues, after all that's how Danish-German border was determined, the fact that this wasn't done everywhere was intentional.

Not just that... they tried to create a Czechoslovak state which was military middleweight. In Slovakia that meant they new state have to get the diagonal railway lines irrespectively of anything about the ethicity. I guess the arrangement was similar in the Sudeten also.

 

[wingo]

Borders have to make sense geographically and politically, ethnicity might be third consideration at best if you want them to be stable. It`s much easier to move or assimilate people than to move mountains or rivers or have undefensible borders going around in zig-zag fashion if politically it looks like there might be conflict with the neighbour...

As for the conflicts about borders, there are tons of areas which might be disputed and even started conflict about in EU, it`s just that nations agreed it`s stupid to make wars about them and it is much better to cooperate for mutual prosperity, because then borders become less and less important with the end goal making them insignificant. Seems like other nations just aren`t there yet culturally...

 

[JodelDiplom]

Borders have to make sense geographically and politically, ethnicity might be third consideration at best if you want them to be stable. It`s much easier to move or assimilate people than to move mountains or rivers or have undefensible borders going around in zig-zag fashion if politically it looks like there might be conflict with the neighbour...

Borders determined by mountains rivers and military defensibility? Sorry but that's really stupid. That's how you bring about border conflicts not avoid them.

 

[olm]

Nowadays border conflict escalations aren't particularly common anywhere as it is pretty damn hard to get rest of the world to recognize your annexation gains. What are common are various nasty internal conflicts inside those borders. Having an extra mountain range will not provide much defensive benefits, as it is unlikely that foreign army will be trying to cross those anyway, most likely threat are locals of those mountains waging guerrilla warfare (possibly with hidden foreign support).

 

[DoomBunny]

In 1919 powers simply prioritized cutting down former Central-Powers over ethnic self-determination. It not like nobody realized that Czechoslovakia would have whole bunch of Germans and Hungarians in it. Also in Europe it was perfectly feasible to do plebiscites on such issues, after all that's how Danish-German border was determined, the fact that this wasn't done everywhere was intentional.

Yes and no. On the one hand, there was a desire to cut Germany down. On the other, there was a desire to actually make a good job of it. In many cases accurate ethnic information was not available, and in others plebiscites were bodged, ignored, or impractical. Particularly in the Balkans things got fudged beyond belief as various parties brought conflicting maps along showing that the areas they wanted miraculously had the correct population composition.

 

[olm]

Yes and no. On the one hand, there was a desire to cut Germany down. On the other, there was a desire to actually make a good job of it. In many cases accurate ethnic information was not available, and in others plebiscites were bodged, ignored, or impractical. Particularly in the Balkans things got fudged beyond belief as various parties brought conflicting maps along showing that the areas they wanted miraculously had the correct population composition.

I don't really see much argument for attempting to make good job except in few specific cases, like Denmark-Germany, which technically was also done on somewhat Denmark favored conditions. Plebiscites didn't happen elsewhere because there was not all that much interest getting it right, blaming it shifty Balkaners with confusing maps is quite dubious. Entente was quite well aware that there were for example a whole lot of Germans in Sudetenland, in the end they simply decided to prioritize other factors. Czechoslovakia needed to be buffed against any future revanchism, Romania deserved sufficient reward for extensive bleeding they did in WW I etc.

 

[DoomBunny]

I don't really see much argument for attempting to make good job except in few specific cases, like Denmark-Germany, which technically was also done on somewhat Denmark favored conditions. Plebiscites didn't happen elsewhere because there was not all that much interest getting it right, blaming it shifty Balkaners with confusing maps is quite dubious. Entente was quite well aware that there were for example a whole lot of Germans in Sudetenland, in the end they simply decided to prioritize other factors. Czechoslovakia needed to be buffed against any future revanchism, Romania deserved sufficient reward for extensive bleeding they did in WW I etc.

Sure, that was a big part of it as well. But then you look at places where those making the decisions tried to make the best possible ones and still came unstuck, partly because there were so many different voices calling for different things and so little clear data to go on. The Banat is one example, with a bunch of various claims and maps being shown and the decision eventually being that it would be split. Similarly the arguments over the Aegean coastline were pretty incomprehensible, with a war going on at the same time, and a whole bunch of conflicting claims. There was also evidence that some truly weird borders would have to be drawn to respect ethnic boundaries (i.e., Turkey with Western Thrace but not Eastern). In Ruthenia meanwhile there was the problem of religion and ethnicity interlocking; was a Catholic Ukrainian a Pole or a Russian? His genes said the latter, but his faith the former. In the end the issue was settled externally. Meanwhile a lot of the crazier stuff that came up in the conference was struck down as impractical or not ethnically viable; i.e., Lloyd George's idea to connect Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia with a corridor running between Austria and Hungary, thereby creating a major Balkan power to stabilize the region.

 

[Herbert West]

I don't think anyone could even pretend that the 1920 borders of Hungary follow ethnic lines. All hungarians north of the Danube-as-border area got lumped into Czechslovakia, simply so the border would be better defined. And lets not even get started on Transsylvania.

The allies quite happily spat in the face of their self-declared ideals (ethnic nations for peoples), and their blatant hypocricy is part of the reason the prelude to WWII went the way it went (as, for example, the annexation of the Sudetenland _was_ just when viewed through the ideals of ethno-national self-determination).

 

[IsadorBG]

Iraq is a country that has been in almost perpetual warfare for almost 40 years now. The mere fact that a country still exist is a miracle in itself.

Syria civil war honestly has more to do with foreign involvement than a sectarian war as people from outside love to present it. Egypt or Tunisia could also have fallen into civil war if Gulf/western money was interested in backing up the muslim brotherhood or various tribes there instead than in Syria.
It's not a hasard than the most competent fighters on both sides are foreign mercenaries (which is kinda digusting for all the party involved tbh) rather than locals who for the most part try to survive inside Syria or outside.

Egypt and Tunisia were just lucky to have close ties to the west so they avoided what I dubb "progressist imperialism" where Libya and Syria (and Iraq before) were not so lucky.

Also Libya is a 99% homogeneous country at least if we consider religion and language. Of course if we start to look a tad deeper there is cultural differences but then we will never end in this death spiral.

 

[olm]

Egypt and Tunisia were just lucky to have close ties to the west so they avoided what I dubb "progressist imperialism" where Libya and Syria (and Iraq before) were not so lucky.

Egyptian and Tunisian autocrats gave up, instead of ramping up violence to hold power at all costs while revolutionary fervour was at its highest. I don't see how comparison with Syria or Libya qualifies in any way.

 

[IsadorBG]

In Egypt it was only temporary. The dictator that rules the country now is more authoritarian than Moubarak was. Yet we don't see the millions of people who democratically voted for Morsi taking arm against their new tyran.
Maybe something to do with how non-egyptian politician seems far less outraged by Sisi's existence than with Ghadaffi or Assad actions. Just a thought.

As for Tunisia it is the first exporter of jihadist in Syria worldwide. It would not have been hard to fund them to "radicalise" the revolution after the secularian victory in 2014.
Altough arguably it would have been harder to find excuses to fund an insurgency in Tunisia.

The revolution fervor indeed played an important role I agree. But without foreing meddling both Syrian and Libyan insurgencies would have been crushed rapidly and we will not be here having debates on failed nation-states

 

[bz249]

In Egypt it was only temporary. The dictator that rules the country now is more authoritarian than Moubarak was. Yet we don't see the millions of people who democratically voted for Morsi taking arm against their new tyran.
Maybe something to do with how non-egyptian politician seems far less outraged by Sisi's existence than with Ghadaffi or Assad actions. Just a thought.

As for Tunisia it is the first exporter of jihadist in Syria worldwide. It would not have been hard to fund them to "radicalise" the revolution after the secularian victory in 2014.
Altough arguably it would have been harder to find excuses to fund an insurgency in Tunisia.

The revolution fervor indeed played an important role I agree. But without foreing meddling both Syrian and Libyan insurgencies would have been crushed rapidly and we will not be here having debates on failed nation-states

Libya might be... Gaddafi was on a reconquest route before the Western bombing. In Syria Assad was about lose before foreign great powers intervened on his side.

 

[Henry IX]

Libya might be... Gaddafi was on a reconquest route before the Western bombing. In Syria Assad was about lose before foreign great powers intervened on his side.

A large section of the Syrian Army joined the rebels before anybody interfered. Syria is NOT the West's fault unless you think they should have intervened at the beginning to complete the overthrow of Assad, hence stopping the war.

 

[fredinno]

So the proper solution would have been to ethnically separate everyone out? Well, it's a nice idea, but (as I keep pointing out) it's damned near impossible. How does one draw an effective map of Africa when one has limited geographical/ethnic knowledge. Even if one does, drawing a border involves a lot more than simply drawing a line; people will be left on either side who do not like the line either for irredentist or personal reasons.

The matter was so complicated that when such a practice was tried in Europe in 1919 all the powers could manage was a series of 'best guess' options, most of which were subsequently overturned by the course of history. Only in 1945 did Europe actually manage anything like a clean up procedure, and there it was only achieved through mass population movement; much of it involuntary and in cases genocidal.

Even today- your average Sub-Saharan African Ethnicity map is effectively a giant mosaic. I don't blame the Berlin Conference for making straight Lines.

 

[bz249]

Even today- your average Sub-Saharan African Ethnicity map is effectively a giant mosaic. I don't blame the Berlin Conference for making straight Lines.

Especially that ethnicity is such a fluid thing, which can be overwritten by proper nationbuilding. E.g. the people of Münsterland in Westphalia are genetically and culturally closer to the Dutch than to the Bavarians, yet they are German an None questions that.