lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,372
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 6, 2016 18:10:36 GMT
Yep--after all, before the start of World War I, there was no independent Poland and the ethnic Polish-majority areas were divided among (between) Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Russia. So do you believe there will eventually be a greater Kurdistan? Only wen Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria want it.
|
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,587
|
Post by spanishspy on Jul 6, 2016 20:05:42 GMT
So do you believe there will eventually be a greater Kurdistan? Only wen Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria want it. Which isn't soon in either timeline.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,833
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 6, 2016 20:32:50 GMT
So do you believe there will eventually be a greater Kurdistan? Only wen Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria want it. Or when someone sits on all of them. Which I think is more likely but still pretty unlikely.
|
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,587
|
Post by spanishspy on Jul 7, 2016 13:32:17 GMT
Only wen Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria want it. Or when someone sits on all of them. Which I think is more likely but still pretty unlikely. Also unfortunate.
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 3, 2016 4:29:51 GMT
Only wen Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria want it. Or when someone sits on all of them. Which I think is more likely but still pretty unlikely. Sits?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,372
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 3, 2016 14:10:27 GMT
Or when someone sits on all of them. Which I think is more likely but still pretty unlikely. Sits? What do you mean with Sits?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,833
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 3, 2016 18:48:08 GMT
Or when someone sits on all of them. Which I think is more likely but still pretty unlikely. Sits? I.e. someone with a lot of power says "There will be a Kurdish state and you will NOT oppose it" and is clearly willing to back up that statement with overwhelming force. Which they will very likely have to use against at least one and probably more of those states. Its an expression in Britain but possibly not known elsewhere? Basically force or the threat of it prompts someone, in this case the four neighbours, to do or at least live with something they utterly detest. Just like the allies 'sat' on Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in WWII, although it doesn't necessarily mean crushing militarilarily and occupying. There might have been a chance for this say in ~1914-19 if WWI had gone somewhat different and say the Kurds had emerged as an ally for Britain [most probably but possibly someone else] and get independence as a result. Possiibly also if the Turks and possibly some Arabs were still hostile so the Kurds are a friendly local power to help keep opponents down. Even then its difficult to see as the Kurds have so many hostile neighbours who will be alienated by British support for a Kurdistan and relatively little land of strategic value. In the future it would need a radical change in the balance of power in the region, somewhat similar to the fall of the Ottoman empire in the 1910's along with a powerful ally for it to come about. Turkey at least would have to see a serious collapse in its power.
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 3, 2016 19:10:18 GMT
I.e. someone with a lot of power says "There will be a Kurdish state and you will NOT oppose it" and is clearly willing to back up that statement with overwhelming force. Which they will very likely have to use against at least one and probably more of those states. Its an expression in Britain but possibly not known elsewhere? Basically force or the threat of it prompts someone, in this case the four neighbours, to do or at least live with something they utterly detest. Just like the allies 'sat' on Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in WWII, although it doesn't necessarily mean crushing militarilarily and occupying. There might have been a chance for this say in ~1914-19 if WWI had gone somewhat different and say the Kurds had emerged as an ally for Britain [most probably but possibly someone else] and get independence as a result. Possiibly also if the Turks and possibly some Arabs were still hostile so the Kurds are a friendly local power to help keep opponents down. Even then its difficult to see as the Kurds have so many hostile neighbours who will be alienated by British support for a Kurdistan and relatively little land of strategic value. In the future it would need a radical change in the balance of power in the region, somewhat similar to the fall of the Ottoman empire in the 1910's along with a powerful ally for it to come about. Turkey at least would have to see a serious collapse in its power. Would having the U.S. declare war on the Ottoman Empire in World War I work for this? After all, this will actually give the more pro-national self-determination U.S. a seat at the post-war negotiations which pertain to the fate (and future) of the Ottoman Empire.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,372
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 3, 2016 19:19:05 GMT
Would having the U.S. declare war on the Ottoman Empire in World War I work for this? After all, this will actually give the more pro-national self-determination U.S. a seat at the post-war negotiations which pertain to the fate (and future) of the Ottoman Empire. Think this is the wrong thread or am i wrong.
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 3, 2016 19:23:28 GMT
Would having the U.S. declare war on the Ottoman Empire in World War I work for this? After all, this will actually give the more pro-national self-determination U.S. a seat at the post-war negotiations which pertain to the fate (and future) of the Ottoman Empire. Think this is the wrong thread or am i wrong. This question of mine pertains to Steve's question in this thread, though.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,372
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 3, 2016 19:33:33 GMT
Think this is the wrong thread or am i wrong. This question of mine pertains to Steve's question in this thread, though. So you think event that happen four decades can lead to Iraq becoming a communist country somewhere in the 1950s.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,833
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 3, 2016 20:54:15 GMT
Well we're had some thread drift as we're talking about an independent Kurdish state in ~1920, which is my fault as I forgot what the original thread was about. [Serious lack of an embarrassment emote here. ] I actually suspect if you got a Kurdish state established at this point, especially if it included most of the Iraqi and Turkish Kurds then you probably wouldn't have an Iraq.
|
|