4 ms·

Divide and Concur: A Radical Plan for Peace in Europe (1920)

33 points by Hooke 3y ago

NotGMan 3y ago
>> There are alternative arrangements, but P.A.M. assures his reader that he has chosen “the most advantageous and fair” division, which will instantly resolve the Balkan question and all other tensions. Haha. This is why academics and idealists must be mocked without regard when they come up with idiotisms like this. They did that in Africa: they created some arbitrary country lines without regards for the local tribes. The results? Constant political fighting and wars because you now forced two tribes which hated each other with a force of a thousand suns into the same new country. So it wasn't "left" vs "right" but "Triba A" vs "Tribe B". No chance they'd get togather or that people would move from triba A to B because of some "political" opinion. It was more like blood revenge. The belief that you could force two hating cultures into loving each other because you draw up some arbitrary lines on the map and say "now get well together, children" is [redacted] to say the least.
- vGPU 3y ago
  See: Crimea. Israel. Etc.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- alephxyz 3y ago
  I'm not convinced by this argument. Plenty of ethnostates waging war on each other as well as stable multiethnic states.
  - melagonster 3y ago
    but sometimes western powers cultivated rancor between existed tribe. then leave them in same country.
  - brightlancer 3y ago
    > Plenty of ethnostates waging war on each other as well as stable multiethnic states. How many multi-ethnic states were created by an outside power, from two or more warring ethnic groups? That was the argument put forth: > > They did that in Africa: they created some arbitrary country lines without regards for the local tribes. The results? Constant political fighting and wars because you now forced two tribes which hated each other with a force of a thousand suns into the same new country. ... > > The belief that you could force two hating cultures into loving each other because you draw up some arbitrary lines on the map and say "now get well together, children" is [redacted] to say the least.
- hulitu 3y ago
  > The results? Constant political fighting and wars It's a very old concept: "divide er impera".
karaterobot 3y ago
> A Radical Plan for Peace in Europe It is radical, but if you drop the 'c' you've got a more descriptive title. Sure, it seems like an insane plan, but just imagine being able to tour every major European region in a couple seconds. You could even do it over and over until you got dizzy.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > drop the 'c' you've got a more descriptive title. Which? > A Radial Plan for Peace in Europe > A Radical Plan for Peae in Europe > Divide and oncur: A Radical Plan for Peace in Europe (1920) > Divide and Conur: A Radical Plan for Peace in Europe (1920)
  - PostOnce 3y ago
    "Radial" plan? Seems to fit, spoke-hub layout and all.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
agumonkey 3y ago
It's "partly" funny to see all the grandiose plans of the past that never came through. Humanity reacts short term but when you take some distance you realize most of ideas in the air are wrong somehow.
AtlasBarfed 3y ago
I thought that when the US embarked upon the fools mission of invasion of Iraq with it's built in three-way ethnic/religious divide, that they should have split the state three ways, but barring that, they should have done some sort of find-grained grid of local control. Then, after a year or two, examined each as to how they allocated their reconstruction funds and established a functioning civil government. After two years, and if a grid "square" (doesn't HAVE to be a grid) is being heavily mismanaged, you pick one of the surrounding grids and pick the one with the best functioning civil governance, and give them control over THAT grid. But far too late for that. Trillions of dollars evaporated. Of course our best potential ally, the Kurds, we didn't support enough. God we are so stupid.

33 points by Hooke 3y ago

>> There are alternative arrangements, but P.A.M. assures his reader that he has chosen “the most advantageous and fair” division, which will instantly resolve the Balkan question and all other tensions. Haha. This is why academics and idealists must be mocked without regard when they come up with idiotisms like this. They did that in Africa: they created some arbitrary country lines without regards for the local tribes. The results? Constant political fighting and wars because you now forced two tribes which hated each other with a force of a thousand suns into the same new country. So it wasn't "left" vs "right" but "Triba A" vs "Tribe B". No chance they'd get togather or that people would move from triba A to B because of some "political" opinion. It was more like blood revenge. The belief that you could force two hating cultures into loving each other because you draw up some arbitrary lines on the map and say "now get well together, children" is [redacted] to say the least.

vGPU 3y ago
See: Crimea. Israel. Etc.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
alephxyz 3y ago
I'm not convinced by this argument. Plenty of ethnostates waging war on each other as well as stable multiethnic states.
- melagonster 3y ago
  but sometimes western powers cultivated rancor between existed tribe. then leave them in same country.
- brightlancer 3y ago
  > Plenty of ethnostates waging war on each other as well as stable multiethnic states. How many multi-ethnic states were created by an outside power, from two or more warring ethnic groups? That was the argument put forth: > > They did that in Africa: they created some arbitrary country lines without regards for the local tribes. The results? Constant political fighting and wars because you now forced two tribes which hated each other with a force of a thousand suns into the same new country. ... > > The belief that you could force two hating cultures into loving each other because you draw up some arbitrary lines on the map and say "now get well together, children" is [redacted] to say the least.
hulitu 3y ago
> The results? Constant political fighting and wars It's a very old concept: "divide er impera".

karaterobot 3y ago

> A Radical Plan for Peace in Europe It is radical, but if you drop the 'c' you've got a more descriptive title. Sure, it seems like an insane plan, but just imagine being able to tour every major European region in a couple seconds. You could even do it over and over until you got dizzy.

Jensson 3y ago
> drop the 'c' you've got a more descriptive title. Which? > A Radial Plan for Peace in Europe > A Radical Plan for Peae in Europe > Divide and oncur: A Radical Plan for Peace in Europe (1920) > Divide and Conur: A Radical Plan for Peace in Europe (1920)
- PostOnce 3y ago
  "Radial" plan? Seems to fit, spoke-hub layout and all.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

agumonkey 3y ago

It's "partly" funny to see all the grandiose plans of the past that never came through. Humanity reacts short term but when you take some distance you realize most of ideas in the air are wrong somehow.

AtlasBarfed 3y ago

I thought that when the US embarked upon the fools mission of invasion of Iraq with it's built in three-way ethnic/religious divide, that they should have split the state three ways, but barring that, they should have done some sort of find-grained grid of local control. Then, after a year or two, examined each as to how they allocated their reconstruction funds and established a functioning civil government. After two years, and if a grid "square" (doesn't HAVE to be a grid) is being heavily mismanaged, you pick one of the surrounding grids and pick the one with the best functioning civil governance, and give them control over THAT grid. But far too late for that. Trillions of dollars evaporated. Of course our best potential ally, the Kurds, we didn't support enough. God we are so stupid.