Expelling your minorities = Losing World Power?

[unmerged(16455)]

The subject is a complicated one, but I will say this: Any world power needs a certain amount of unity between it's people and it's government. Expelling minorities within a society is an attempt to soldify and strenghten the political and cultural cohesion of the majority. By ellimenating ethnic, religious, and/or racial groups from the populace (that seem unlikely to support the policies of the governing power) the nations rulers are broadining their appeal. By simple math the more internal opponents a state removes, the greater support it can have (as a percentage of the population).
Of course it can be argued that the economic contributions of targeted groups outweigh any political gains achieved by their removal. But the opposite can also be true. A nation with a reduced population can gain economically when it does not have abundant resources to spread around, or need large pools of manpower to acheive its ambitions.

 

[unmerged(13055)]

Though the English didn't "expel" the Pilgrims and Puritans in the 17th century, they did persecute them and because they were dissenters and separatists they certainly encouraged them to leave. Which the Pilgrims and Puritans did - most of the early settlers of North America had left England to escape persecution.

So in that case you could argue that the English policy of ridding itself of one religious minority didn't lead to their decline as a world power but in fact was a factor in their rise with the settling of the North American colonies.

 

[Malthus]

I look at it in this way:

Expulsions have both a short and long term effect. The short term effect can be both positive (in that it removes potential dissidents) and negative (these dissidents may be very productive - like Jews in Spain, Hugenots in France, etc.).

However, the long-term effect is always negative, because expulsions are associated with a culture of extreme intolerance, which is adversarial to the later development of scientific and cultural progress. A united society, firm in its faith and protected by an inquisition against dissidents and heretics may be stable and powerful; it will not, however, advance fast or far. It is doomed to fossilize, which is a problem if its rivals are not *as* fossilized as it.

Spain is a perfect example of this. United, it expells Jews and Muslims. It gains a monetary bonus (the voyages of Columbus were reputadly financed by looted Jewish gold!). It enjoys a military heyday of exploration and conquest. Unfortunately, it suffers from creeping fossilization of its scientific, manufacturing and cultural base. There are many reasons for this; one, at least, is the culture of intolerance represented by such institutions as the Inquisition. The important thing about this intolerance is that it continues, year after year. It is all-encompassing, against any who are not Catholic.

England, by contrast, indulges in steady intollerance only against Catholics; and that intolerance is spotty in England itself (though implacable against the Irish). This gives the English an advantage in innovation.

Naturally, there are a host of other factors involved. But intolerance leading to a lack of innovation is clearly *a* factor. Imagine a Jew-friendly Nazi Germany, able to draw on the skills of scientists like Einstien for its military machine ...

 

[unmerged(3700)]

I don't think you can look to the entire U.S. epic effort of destroying the Native Americans as "expulsions." In most cases settlers would move in to a region, and an agreement of some sort would be signed with the local tribes. There would be something, either the result of a local tribe that does not support the agreement or, more often, American settlers breaking the agreement and the next thing you know you have a few settlers dead. This is followed by a military expedition where 10 fold indians are massacred and the rest are pushed further west.

The only indian tribe that was able to integrate successfully during the Westward expansion era was the Cherokee. The Cherokee indians before Jackson's reign (appropriate word imo) were basically westernized. They lived in western style homes, most were Christians, they worked at trades in the market economy in the exact same manner as the whites. Some even owned black slaves. Unfortunately they controlled land that certain Southern states would rather have for their own purposes, and, this causes the trail of tears. Thats really the only true "expulsion" of indians in America like the ones talked about above.

Mostly America conquered, murdered, and then rounded up and isolated the Native Americans. It certainly has not destroyed America's great power status. One does have to wonder what the U.S. would be like today if the Native Americans hadn't been massacred on such a large scale (estimates suggest 95% of Native Americans living in what was to be the continental United States in 1600 had been killed off by 1890).

I do believe about 50% of the American Loyalists did flee to the U.K. and Canada after the Revolution though, this hasn't really affectected the U.S. either.

 

[unmerged(3700)]

What about Iran?

Not sure if you are kidding or not.

But Iran would stand absolutely no chance against Turkey, honestly that war would last at most like six months. I wouldn't be surprised if it was over in three.

Remember prior to Desert Storm Iraq and Iran were basically equal militarily, Iraq had the more advanced army and more advanced arms, and Iran had the sheer numbers on its side. Even with their numerical superiority (there were instances of 30,000+ people armed with basically peasant farming equipment rushing entrenched Iraqi positions) the fact that most of Iran's Regular Army was not as well trained or equipped as Iraq's meant that Iraq was able to hold off Iranians even after they mounted a vicious counteroffensive.

Turkey, on the other hand, has an Air Force that is in much better shape than the Iraqi air force was ever in, they'd easily destroy any Iranian aerial resistance. Turkish infantry and armor divisions are also leaps and bounds ahead of the Iranians in soldier skill/training and technology.

 

[unmerged(7924)]

The reason why Iraq won that war was because they used gas.

I saw a program on TV the other day, that the US had promised Iraq help (information on where the iranian troops were), but instead gave weapons to Iran. So, Saddam became *wery* angry, and therefore used gas, which easily could struck down on the big Iranian armies. Msstardgas (?) was the gas he used, or so I think.

 

[unmerged(3700)]

That is not true at all.

First, Iraq did not win that war. Both countries lost. Resolution 598, which ended the war, called for a return to pre-war borders. Although there were still some political arguments up even to the present time over exactly what were the pre-war borders, basically no territory changed hands.

Iraq did very good at the beginning of the war because they attacked Iran with extreme force and drove the Iranians back. As the war progressed the Iranians began to use unorthodox tactics (peasant rushes) and pure brute overwhelming of Iraqi positions and were able to drive into Iraq itself. Then a more solid front was established and the war drug on for several more years.

Ultimately estimates place total casualties at over 1 million, and it is estimated 200,000 Iraqi soldiers died and 400,000-800,000 Iranians soldiers died. Due also to the fact that both Iran and Iraq used irregular troops exact figures are impossible to attain.

As far as how the war itself played out, Iran had a Navy that was easily able to establish a naval blockade of Iraqi ports, Iraq had a small almost nonexistant Navy. The Iraqi air force on the other hand was much better than the Iranian air force and the Iranians intentionally avoided any contact with Iraqi forces in the air. However the Iraqi air force was not large enough nor could it sustain enough power in the air at all times to establish true Air Superiority, so the Iranians could make lightning raids against economic targets in Iraq with their smaller air force. From 1983 onward Iraq used poison gas and the fact that the use of gas began 5 years before the war ended, and that during that time Iran actually was pressing on into Iraq, shows that the gas did not alter the effects of the war.

Now, in an Iran-Turkish war it would be far different. The border defenses of Turkey are much more formidable than those the Iranians encountered in Iraq. The Turkish military has better weapons, training, more armored units, more helicpoters, a larger navy, and a much large air force. The mass suicide rushes could not push back the Turks significantly due to their superior weapons. The Turkish air force could and would hold air superiority quickly. The Turkish navy is more than capable of sailing into the Persian Gulf and destroying Iranian naval forces and instituting a complete naval blockade. This combined with Turkish air superiority would allow the Turks to destroy Irans internal industrial structure while it prevented them from bringing in resources from overseas. At the same time Turkeys much more advanced economy would be outproducing the Iranians, and would also not have to worry about Iranian air attacks. The Turks would also maintain all of their Mediterranean and Black Sea trade while depriving Iran of those same materials.

Turkey would win big.

Although Turkey and Iran seem very equivalent on paper, Turkey has a vast edge in military technology due to it's friends in Europe and the United States.

Some Comparative Facts on Both Countries (From CIA World Factbook)

Iran

GDP - $456 billion
Per Capita Purchasing Power - $7,000
% Below Poverty Line - 53%
Military Expenditures - $9.7 billion

Turkey

GDP - $468 billion
Per Capita Purchasing Power - $7,000
% Below Poverty Line - (Percentage Not Available from CIA, WFB)
Military Expenditures - $8.1 billion

So yeah, pretty close to each other but again Turkey has good friends who have supplied them well.

 

[unmerged(7924)]

That doesn't convince me. Iran has got quite a few friends aswell, I don't think the arab world would see that attack as acceptable, and probably help out the Iranians.

How is the turkish navy going to block the Iranian ports? Going throught the suez channel? The suez channel is controlled by Egypt, and I don't think they would see it as acceptable to let the turkish through, it would be like helping out Turkey. Remember, most arab countries see Turkey as a part of "the west", which they are. Besides, If the Turkish navy is going to block the Iranian ports, they'd have to have *alot* of ships. Iran has alot of neighbours, and wouldn't be defeated by some seablockades.

 

[unmerged(3700)]

I was working on the assumption that we were having a fight between Iran and Turkey with no interference from the outside.

In that case, Turkey will have the military backing of the United States in a war with Iran, the U.S.'s involvement will keep the rest of the arab world from even considering helping out Iran.

 

[unmerged(7924)]

How can you be so sure? It's not like the arabs really loves USA anymore...

However, this is getting slightly off-topic. Usually I'd add something with Israel as a reason, but that would only cause trouble, Isn't discussions about Israel forbidden?

 

[unmerged(10416)]

No one will be able to stand against the USA. I think the recent war made that pretty clear. It also made clear that the USA can shell out $$$ like no one else to get allies all over the world.

Also, I wonder what Iran could ever want from Turkey... more mountaineous backlands? Make a (futile) point? Offer an example of martyrdom for the rest of the Islamic world in their struggle against the evil west? Wait, Turkey's also part of the Islamic world.

 

[unmerged(3700)]

I hope you aren't suggesting either Iran or Turkey is mostly arab in population, if you are, you're wrong. If you are not, I'm not sure why you think the arab world would want to be involved.

Neither Turkey nor Iran are significantly arab in their population composition. It's very narrow minded to simply assume all countries in that region are arab countries.


Iran

60% Persian
25% Azeri
7% Kurdish
2% Lur
6% other, including: Arab, Armenian, Assyrian, Baluchi, Georgian, and Pashtun

Turkey

80% Turkish
17% Kurdish
3% Other, including: Arabs, Greeks, and Armenians

As you can see both countries have extremely small Arab populations. And no, Turkish/Persian are not "basically the same thing as Arabs" the Turks come from a different region of the world than the Arabs originally did and ethnically and culturally there are vast differences.

So your argument that the Arab world would be supportive to the point of intervention in Iran isn't really accurate, traditionally the arabs and the Persians aren't the best of friends.

And, the arab world sat by while the United States without U.N. approval invaded a country that IS mostly Arab (Iraq) and did nothing about it. I doubt they would intervene in a Turkey-Iran war which would probably be backed by the U.N. (as Turkey has more powerful friends in the security council) and it would be two non-arab nations going at it.

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Mormegil
Isn't discussions about Israel forbidden?

Only until people are capable of discussing it civilly. Which is to say, forever.

 

[unmerged(3700)]

Originally posted by Mormegil
How can you be so sure? It's not like the arabs really loves USA anymore...

However, this is getting slightly off-topic. Usually I'd add something with Israel as a reason, but that would only cause trouble, Isn't discussions about Israel forbidden?

At one time I used to believe in keeping threads on topic, but then after a few days I realized no thread in any forum stays on the original topic for long

 

[unmerged(7924)]

It's because of the religion... Islam.

The US and GB isn't traditionally good friends either...

Hence to the war thingie (I don't want to start a discusion there either): Many arabs demonstrated against the war, I remember seeing big demonstrations against the war in Egypt on TV.

Besides, I think most people wanted to get that man away, that was probably one of the reasons they didn't help out.

I don't think the muslim world would like to see a country fall to the west without doing anything wrong.

Karl Martell is right, there's unlikely a such war would ever happen.

Turkey is Islamic, but it's considered a part of the west, they've come longer than any (?) islamic countries when it comes to several things (like women's right etc.).


And yeah, there's ain't many threads which manage to be clean all the way out (except one: The "the world's longest thread" thread, Spam all the way)

It's been fun to discuss with you OttoVonBismark

 

[unmerged(3700)]

Again Morm, you didn't say that Turkey would be invading Iran without provocation, the war could be started say, with Iran invading Turkey.

Either way, most rulers of Islamic countries don't really believe in the fundamentalist Islam they so often talk about, they believe in keeping themselves in power and use Islam as a way of controlling their people (not unlike Christian monarchs did in the middle ages). After the disastrous results the Middle Eastern countries that tried to invade Israel suffered I really don't think theres any chance whatsoever of the Middle East rising against Turkey and it's U.S. allies.

NATO would be behind Turkey, so what if the Middle East did rise up against them, it would not change the result of the war. I'm 100% positive NATO can handle Syria, Jordan, and Egypt (honestly the only countries I can even IMAGINE intervening, and Egypt not 100%.) Qatar, Saudi Arabia (despite current relations), Kuwait, don't have to worry about them getting involved.

Also lots of Americans and Europeans protested the invasion of Iraq, just because people are out on the street screaming doesn't mean their governments are really going to do anything about it.

 

[unmerged(6986)]

The Azeri speak the same languague with Turks. (i.e. Azeri watch a number of Turkish Tv channels in Azerbaijan likewise Turks watch Azeri-Tv in Turkey -without translation or subtitles) The relations are also quite good, even though the communist-period had frozen relations in the past today its improving fast. The significant %25 Azeri minority would probably mean a lot of a problems for Iran in such a war.

For Iran and Turkey, the last war between two nations was back in 1789, the borders are quite settled and there are no border conflicts. The relations were quite peaceful and friendly until then up to fundamentalist revolution in Iran. The fundamentalist goverment of Iran had illustrated a serious anti-Ataturk approach back in 80's and early 90's, possibly with hopes of starting a fundamentalist movement in Turkey, ironically this raised a great deal of anti-Iran sentiment among Turks (it worked backwards). The recent Iran goverment seems mild and careful in relations with Turkey though.

 

[unmerged(11089)]

joke

Here is an old Russian joke about expulsion of a minority leading to a downfall of empires:

An old Jewish man sitting in Oddessa in 1950(For those that don't know this was the time of the Doctor trials, the most anti-semitic period of Soviet History). He tells a story to his grandson:
Listen Itzhak,
do not worry about whats going on around you!
First came the Pharoas, and they tried to kill of the Jews, where are the Pharoas now, and they Jews are still here.
Then came the Romans, destroyed our Temple, where are the Romans now, we are still here.
The came Hitler, tried to gas us, where is Hitler, the Jews are still here.
Now came the communists....
Two men in blue uniforms come up to them and ask, "What are you trying to say comrade."
The old man quickly replies, "Oh, nothing, nothing at all, just that we have made it to the final!"


And as the future showed, they won the Final.


Thus it is easy to see that closed societies are the ones that try to get rid of minorities, and as we know closed societies always crumble.