Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: Balkan_belligerants_1914.jpg (828KB, 1015x1014px) Image search:
[Google]
828KB, 1015x1014px
Some have made comparisons from the modern day middle east to the pre-ww1 (ie 1880-1914) Balkans. The essential argument I hear is that in the early twentieth century Balkan states began becoming imperialist (vis-a-vis their neighbors) due to rising nationalism following their liberation from the declining Ottoman empire. In a similar fashion, early twenty-first century arab states are becoming imperialist due to rising religious extremism following their "liberation" from the declining Comintern (who supported the baathist states). Does pic related not resemble the modern middle east?
Speculation:
The first world war came about due to longstanding treaties and a willingness by the central/allied powers to enforce them. Could a similar thing happen in the middle east? Forget about Iraq, let's say Saudi Arabia begins to break up and Iran intervenes with Russian or Chinese support and fire on US bases (perhaps as part of a larger strategy involving claims in the South Pacific and Arctic Sea). Disregarding "superpower" intervention, a major result of ww1 was communism becoming a real thing (ie, it took over a country, impoverished Russia). Let's say over the next ten years ISIS is able to grow (perhaps able to get a bit of shoreline in Syria) and become a stable (but authoritarian) country. They could then become a major player in a larger conflict (say the US vs China).
thoughts?
>>
>>1564606
>The essential argument I hear is that in the early twentieth century Balkan states began becoming imperialist
Who the fuck says that? Do western historians seriously say that shit? I'm Balkanite and I've never heard of it.
And if we've been imperialists does that mean we're now one of the cool countries? Though I guess that also means we have to start hating ourselves for being white and inviting muslims to rape our women and boys.
>>
Russia is actively fighting against ISIS, very unlikely that they would support them in a war against the US.
>>
>>1564606
The only Middle Eastern states you could consider imperialist would be Saudi Arabia and Iran, as shown by their religiously-enforced rivalry.
But only the Yemeni Civil War is a result of that. Syria happened first due to internal factors, and was then exacerbated by the involvement of numerous foreign powers, not just Iran/Saudi
Iraq and Libya are also domestically-rooted conflicts, with overtones of Western imperialism
None of these are "liberated" states. Comintern collapsed 25 years ago, and even then had little influence over ME states and their relations with each other.
I like historical comparisons but usually there's way too many holes in them
ISIS has way too many enemies to survive. You have Russia and Turkey fucking collaborating to take them down. You have Iran allowing a foreign country to use its military bases (their constitutions BANS the establishment of foreign military bases) to target them. Other than some edgy rich Salafis in the Gulf states, they have no support
>>
File: Achaemenid_and_Iranic_Peoples_in_the_Ancient_World.png (344KB, 1732x1167px) Image search:
[Google]
344KB, 1732x1167px
>>1564606
>>
>>1564740
"Imperialist" as in, trying to invade their neighbours to create an empire for themselves, not imperialist in the "exploiting muh poor niggers" sense
>>
>>1566477
>Iranic people in 500 BC lived in Eastern Europe
>muh Scythians were secret Iranians this whole time guys!
>muh aryan Iranians
t. khomeini
Thread posts: 7
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2