Proposals and War Aims That Didn't Happen Map Thread

[LSCatilina]

@Skallagrim
Redrawing borders and separating population (whom main identitarian distinctions are rather relatively recent or relatively recently exacerbated) on a top-down perspective is also preventing these population to undergo similar evolution and nation-building on their own grounds (and original solutions) that western countries managed to pull of eventually, and risking to turn the region in yet another ethnicised national ensemble like it happened in Balkans with the known consequences.
Of course it can be messy, if not bloody, but western meddling in Balkans doesn't have a good record anyway to really appear as peace-giver there.

 

[Analytical Engine]

I never knew I needed that in my life, but now I'm glad that I do.

He's especially good at imperialism...

 

[Skallagrim]

@Skallagrim
Redrawing borders and separating population (whom main identitarian distinctions are rather relatively recent or relatively recently exacerbated) on a top-down perspective is also preventing these population to undergo similar evolution and nation-building on their own grounds (and original solutions) that western countries managed to pull of eventually, and risking to turn the region in yet another ethnicised national ensemble like it happened in Balkans with the known consequences.
Of course it can be messy, if not bloody, but western meddling in Balkans doesn't have a good record anyway to really appear as peace-giver there.

I'll readily admit that there's a lot of potential for things to go wrong in practice. And in any case, dramatically re-drawing the borders of a whole region would automatically require military invasion and occupation-- which i do not support, no matter how idealistic the goals might be.

Regarding the nation-forming process, I do see things a bit differently. I think it's better to separate first, and then freely allow voluntary(!) unification, than it is to throw various groups together into artificial countries that typically oppose secessionism. (for instance: Iraq, which was artificially crafted by the British and has since then opposed a Kurdish wish for independence.) The should, in my view, be nothing to oppose hypothetical smaller states to later unify. For instance, if you have a Mesopotamian Arab Shi'a state, an equally Arab and Shi'a Khuzestan, and an also Arab and Shi'a Kuwait... those might at some point choose to unite into a federal state. Great. That's far from impossible, in the same way it was far from impossible for Germany or Italy to unify. I don't think that allowing all such regions independence first, and then letting them choose(!) if they want union later, is in any way robbing them of their chance to evolve towards federalisation etc.

As far as the Balkans are concerned, I think the major mistake there was the creation of Yugoslavia. Same mistake that was made when they made Iraq, really. And as far as I'm concerned, one with a similar solution. If I'd been in charge of "solving that puzzle" after World War I, I'd have gone all the way in creating countries for all nationalities, with the borders made to reflect the real ethno-linguistic and religious situation on as detailed a scale as possible. Thus yielding separate countries for Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks and Macedonians. Of course, in the case of the Serbs and the Bosniaks, this would involve creating either two non-contiguous countries... or some population exchanges. Neither option is truly attractive, but if decisively implemented, either could probably have yielded a situation far more stable (and far more 'definitive' and thus more accepted by the local population) than OTL ever did.

tl;dr -- almost every time the Western powers tried to create artificial states that put a lot of different grouops together, it led to horrors. It's too late to really change things now without more horrors, but an ATL where such forced unions were avoided altogether would almost certainly be a more pleasant place.

(All of this reminds me that I should really try my hand at a "less crappy Middle East borders" map.)

 

[Faeelin]

he big problem is that the borders are often poorly drawn. It's easy to be haughtily dismissive about attempts to create more homogeneous countries and to make sure people who hate each other with a passion aren't crammed into one country... if you're looking at it from the perspective of the West, which already went through that. Less than a century ago, irridentist claims based on ethnic interests were literally the thing that sparked World War Two. How was that solved? By re-drawing borders and - in many cases - mass deportations. Messy, but things have been a lot better in Europe since then. Except of former Yugoslavia, of course, where ethnic tensions and claims... oh. Wait.

I have no doubt that major border revisions could vastly improve the political situation in the Near East and Middle East. If you make sure that every group that ardently feels distinct and has trouble with the neighbours has its own country, you'll have a lot more peace and tranquility than you get when you force multiple such groups into one artificial country drawn up by colonialist rulers.

So, yeah. Break things up into small(er) countries. It really is the way to go.

Just because Europeans are barbarians who have to ethnically cleanse their neighbors doesn't mean the rest of the world is.

Also, I guess Belgium, India, and hell, the European Union don't exist?

 

[Faeelin]

"You see guys, the Bavarians and Prussians are entirely different peoples, riven by religious conflict. Not like Arabs, who all speak the same tongue and have the same God..."- Some guy four timeliens over.

 

[Deleted member 114175]

You, a geopolitical plebe: We should consider the culture and etymology of the subject national group to determine what monicker their hypothetical country would ha-

Me, The Expert: ATTACH -STAN TO LITERALLY EVERYTHING.

That makes me wonder what would a world map look like if every country's name ended in -stan (perhaps with 1 serious and 1 satirical version for each country).

 

[Etruscan-enthusiast35]

That makes me wonder what would a world map look like if every country's name ended in -stan (perhaps with 1 serious and 1 satirical version for each country).

Poland
Serious: Lechistan
Satirical Polandastan

 

[Crying]

Poland
Serious: Lechistan
Satirical Polandastan

Kurvastan

 

[Ivoshafen]

Poland
Serious: Lechistan
Satirical Polandastan

Indiana
Serious: Wabashistan
Satirical: Hoosieristan

 

[Crazy Boris]

Map of Syria, Iraq, Arabia and Libya as envisioned by Robin Wright in 2013

What really bugs me is why name those new Arabian states after directions instead of calling them Hail/Jamal Shammar, Hejaz, Asir, and Al-Hasa?

 

[Chris S]

No-one could ever be dumber than the barbarians who hate city-states. City-states are awesome.

(In case of Baghdad, which is right there between the sunni and shi'a areas, and has both populations represented within it, I can certainly see the logic of making it a city-state if you decide to divide Iraq into multiple countries...)




The big problem is that the borders are often poorly drawn. It's easy to be haughtily dismissive about attempts to create more homogeneous countries and to make sure people who hate each other with a passion aren't crammed into one country... if you're looking at it from the perspective of the West, which already went through that. Less than a century ago, irridentist claims based on ethnic interests were literally the thing that sparked World War Two. How was that solved? By re-drawing borders and - in many cases - mass deportations. Messy, but things have been a lot better in Europe since then. Except of former Yugoslavia, of course, where ethnic tensions and claims... oh. Wait.

I have no doubt that major border revisions could vastly improve the political situation in the Near East and Middle East. If you make sure that every group that ardently feels distinct and has trouble with the neighbours has its own country, you'll have a lot more peace and tranquility than you get when you force multiple such groups into one artificial country drawn up by colonialist rulers.

So, yeah. Break things up into small(er) countries. It really is the way to go.

I dunno.....Somalia seemed to suggest that theory has its limits considering that in Somalia they were all of the same ethnicity, language and religion and the country went from the 1950s-1980s period of attempting to unite all Somali-inhabited lands (hence the Ogaden War), to being torn apart by civil war with one major area (Somaliland) actually declaring and retaining (unrecognized) independence.

 

[Skallagrim]

I dunno.....Somalia seemed to suggest that theory has its limits considering that in Somalia they were all of the same ethnicity, language and religion and the country went from the 1950s-1980s period of attempting to unite all Somali-inhabited lands (hence the Ogaden War), to being torn apart by civil war with one major area (Somaliland) actually declaring and retaining (unrecognized) independence.

That really just proves that homogeneity isn't a guarantee for success-- which I didn't claim, either. All i'm saying is that cramming different groups who have a troubled history into one state has historically worked out poorly in virtually all instances. Especially if said state is an artificial construct that doesn't grant its inhabitants a shared past and "myth of shared identity", so to speak. To be clear: I'm not suggesting my view offers a panacea, but just that it would improve the situation in many OTL instances.

My whole point, ultimately, was that the people offering suggestions for re-drawn borders aren't fundamentally wrong. Same way that people who have suggested border revisions throughout history haven't been fundamentally wrong. It's just that many plans for the Middle east, also just like many historical proposals for other regions, are good in intent and often inexact in their details. That is: you can't just draw an approximate line. You need to actually consider the exact situation "on the ground".

Just because Europeans are barbarians who have to ethnically cleanse their neighbors doesn't mean the rest of the world is.

Because of course the Middle east is blessedly free of ethnic cleansing and sectarian strife. Get real and stop posting straw men.

Also, I guess Belgium, India, and hell, the European Union don't exist?

Oh, they exist. Two out of three came into being due to the involved people(s) wanting it, and the third (India) was initially an artificial construct left-over from British imperialism... and then quickly separated into India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Not without reason.

"You see guys, the Bavarians and Prussians are entirely different peoples, riven by religious conflict. Not like Arabs, who all speak the same tongue and have the same God..."- Some guy four timeliens over.

You're only proving my point for me.

At one time - not even that long ago - Bavarians and Prussians did predominantly speak quite different local languages. To the point where their respective rural inhabitants would not be able to comprehend each other. And during that same time, religion did in fact divide people something fierce. Now imagine some arrogant jack-ass from a distant land coming over and forcing them into one country with one central government and absolute majority rule and no options for secession. Well done, jack-ass, you've just caused a repeat of the Thirty Years' War.

On the other hand... Arabs in the present of OTL are very divided on sectarian grounds, and several countries contain both Arabs and non-Arabs, leading to ethnic tensions... but if we don't force them into the straight-jacket of artificial union, they can easily do the same thing the various German peoples did in the 19th century. And a hundred years from now, people might then wonder at the fact that the Arabs were ever so divided against themselves at all, and over matters that may by then be seen as utterly trivial.

But in both cases, the key point is that the people involved do it themselves. That some arrogant jack-ass doesn't try to force it. And we, Europeans, have forced union on many other peoples in OTL. That was a mistake in nearly all cases, and it has caused suffering in nearly all cases. I would prefer it had not been that way, and the fact that you appear have such problems with people who express that wish baffles me.

 

[Chris S]

Okay. Those are well made points.

 

[Thon Taddeo]

Map of various proposals of the border between China and Tibet from the 1914 Simla conference. The Chinese never accepted the final Simla accords, because they granted too much autonomy to Tibet. Britain and Tibet later came to an agreement by which Tibet ceded large areas in the Himalayas to India, which is the source of the Sino-Indian border dispute in the region.

 

[Vuu]

snibbedy snabbidy

Unions often have to be forced in a way - the Germans only managed it after a few bloody tries - we'll probably do that too, but here everyone often jumps on the bandwagon, stopping all the slaughtering at the worst possible time, when everyone's too much into it, making everyone thoroughly pissed latter because nothing was decisive. Let it burn itself out and see that the forest is fertilized

Yes, NATO + vassals, I'm looking at you.

 

[UrbanNight]

Map of the proposed New State from New South Wales in 1924.

 

[Clandango]

Spéciale décidace to @Alex Richards

Projects of reunion to Switzerland of Chablais and Faucigny (possibly Carouge) parts of Savoy, in one or two new cantons. These regions were supposed to be militarily occupied by Switzerland in case of territorial threat by the Treaties of 1815, making the "neutralized zone of Savoy".
In 1860, some prospects were made into annexing this region as France was taking over Savoy, but local population was at best uninterested, at worst hostile.

Proposed cantons were either on Chablais and Faucigny either forming two cantons (first map) of forming one sole canton and Carouge being tied to Geneva (second map)

Napoleon III apparently directly promised the land to Switzerland but renegaded on it. Also, anyone have any idea what parts of Belgium or German Napoleon III wanted? He apparently wanted to trade Belgium some Flemish land for a bit of there, and was apparently expecting some concession by Prussia for not getting into the Austria-Prussian War.

 

[LSCatilina]

Napoleon III apparently directly promised the land to Switzerland but renegaded on it.

It was more vague and short-lived : as there was a certain political wavering in late 1859 and early 1860, with France withdrawing from the war in Italy, and with some Swiss politicians willing to enforce the possibility opened by the 1815 treaties on Chablais and Fucigny, Napoleon seems to have considered the possibility of letting them just do this. But giving the relative hostility of local population on a territorial dismemberment and the risk seeing this appearing as a victory of anti-bonapartist and liberal French tendencies (which fueled a lot of political hostility in both Nice and Savoy) and seeing nobody would really mind him doing so, he just went with the original plan.

Also, anyone have any idea what parts of Belgium or German Napoleon III wanted? He apparently wanted to trade Belgium some Flemish land for a bit of there, and was apparently expecting some concession by Prussia for not getting into the Austria-Prussian War.

It's both more simple and complicated : there wasn't a clear idea of what was obtainable or even thought to be obtainable by Napoleon III but a fairly vague and broad horizon (whom vagueness was entrained by Bismark's own diplomacy but as well hesitations) : now it was mostly based on 1814 borders , with the addition of Luxembourg and a possible extension from there (especially on the Palatinate).
Truth is, Napoleon III wasn't really that interested taking on Belgium as such, and possibly rather searched a favorable strategical-political position on its neighbors (maybe trying to establish its hegemony) : he knew too well that anything more would have been a big no-no with London something he neither needed or wanted. Of course, if he could take back the 1814 borders in Belgium all the better, but it wasn't really much of a focus compared to the possibilities on Rhineland.

As for trading parts of Flanders, it's the first time I hear about this : giving that the whole question was excessively blurry, and giving it would be against the general tendencies of Napoleonic diplomacy and politics, I find this particularly surprising. Where did you found this?

 

[Clandango]

As for trading parts of Flanders, it's the first time I hear about this : giving that the whole question was excessively blurry, and giving it would be against the general tendencies of Napoleonic diplomacy and politics, I find this particularly surprising. Where did you found this?

I read about it in the past, though online. I imagined it was seething like returning the lands given to the Netherlands after Napoleon I's Hundred Days, as well as giving France Luxembourg and a bit of Belgian Luxembourg to round it out, though looking up the Luxembourg Crisis it seems that I was remembering thigns in the wrong way, with a diplomat suggesting Belgium get Luxembourg while giving France land elsewhere, which the Belgian king refused.

 

[Alex Richards]

Spéciale décidace to @Alex Richards



Projects of reunion to Switzerland of Chablais and Faucigny (possibly Carouge) parts of Savoy, in one or two new cantons. These regions were supposed to be militarily occupied by Switzerland in case of territorial threat by the Treaties of 1815, making the "neutralized zone of Savoy".
In 1860, some prospects were made into annexing this region as France was taking over Savoy, but local population was at best uninterested, at worst hostile.

Proposed cantons were either on Chablais and Faucigny either forming two cantons (first map) of forming one sole canton and Carouge being tied to Geneva (second map)

Interesting. I'd come across references to the Chablais being claimed in 1815 but not the rest of it.