peaceful country splits?

[pyotr filipivich]

Was pondering the subject of partitioning countries, and the only
ones which I can think of in the last hundred years or so is the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics, and
the devolution of the Soviet Union into the Federated Russian States
and "the rest".
Not sure how to consider the partition of the British Raj into
Pakistan (East & West) and India. Yes, there was a lot of violence
(riots & pogroms), but was that a cause, or a result? or some other
factor? I don't think the partition of Pakistan into Pakistan and
Bangladesh was a smooth transition either.
Likewise, the break up of the Ottoman and Austria-Hungarian
Empires had as much to the "Empire" losing the war and being broken up
as anything. (And we all know how "South Slavia" - aka Yugoslavia -
transitioned into a Post Tito partition.)

But I'm not aware of any others which did not involve a war or two
to accomplish. Does anyone else?


tschus
pyotr

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:19:52 -0700, pyotr filipivich

Post by pyotr filipivich
Was pondering the subject of partitioning countries, and the only
ones which I can think of in the last hundred years or so is the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics, and
the devolution of the Soviet Union into the Federated Russian States
and "the rest".
Not sure how to consider the partition of the British Raj into
Pakistan (East & West) and India. Yes, there was a lot of violence
(riots & pogroms), but was that a cause, or a result? or some other
factor? I don't think the partition of Pakistan into Pakistan and
Bangladesh was a smooth transition either.

The death toll in 1947-48 was in the 10 million range with many more
than that in displaced persons. Not my idea of peaceful.

The formation of Bangladesh was largely the doing of the Indian army
and would have been far worse than it was.

It was to the 70s as the starving Ibos of Biafra were to teh 60s and
both featured pretty horrendous media coverage of starving children.

I think pretty much anybody in a western country who was old enough to
remember the following album cover
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concert_for_Bangladesh_(album)
would not be in any possible doubt.

Nobody knows the true death toll but estimates in the 500k - 3 million
range are regularly cited for civilian casualties.

Ireland leaving the UK in 1921-22 was relatively peaceful though there
had been much bloodshed in all Ireland (e.g. all 32 counties including
the 6 that formed Northern Ireland) both before and after separation.
But that tended to be militia on militia rather than the civilian
population being routinely targetted as was the case in most of the
other conflicts referred to above. I would argue that Irish
casualties were higher than they might have been due to the large
number of Irishmen who had served in the British Army 1914-18 and thus
had a far better idea of what weaponry could do than before 1914.

This includes plenty who ended up on both sides of the conflict.

[For what it's worth, Germany tried to form an Irish brigade from
Irish POWs taken in British service in WW1 but that was not a major
factor. One of them a man named Keogh played a significant role in the
Nazi party in the days before the Beer Hall putsch.]

Post by pyotr filipivich
Likewise, the break up of the Ottoman and Austria-Hungarian
Empires had as much to the "Empire" losing the war and being broken up
as anything. (And we all know how "South Slavia" - aka Yugoslavia -
transitioned into a Post Tito partition.)

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:19:52 -0700, pyotr filipivich

Post by pyotr filipivich
Was pondering the subject of partitioning countries, and the only
ones which I can think of in the last hundred years or so is the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics, and
the devolution of the Soviet Union into the Federated Russian States
and "the rest".
Not sure how to consider the partition of the British Raj into
Pakistan (East & West) and India. Yes, there was a lot of violence
(riots & pogroms), but was that a cause, or a result? or some other
factor? I don't think the partition of Pakistan into Pakistan and
Bangladesh was a smooth transition either.

The death toll in 1947-48 was in the 10 million range with many more
than that in displaced persons. Not my idea of peaceful.

I knew it was high, I thought it was less.

OTOH, as a percentage of populations, "not so bad".

Post by The Horny Goat
The formation of Bangladesh was largely the doing of the Indian army
and would have been far worse than it was.
It was to the 70s as the starving Ibos of Biafra were to teh 60s and
both featured pretty horrendous media coverage of starving children.

I remember both of those. Biafria doesn't serve as a good example
of a successful partition. Unfortunately.

Post by The Horny Goat
I think pretty much anybody in a western country who was old enough to
remember the following album cover
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concert_for_Bangladesh_(album)
would not be in any possible doubt.
Nobody knows the true death toll but estimates in the 500k - 3 million
range are regularly cited for civilian casualties.
Ireland leaving the UK in 1921-22 was relatively peaceful though there
had been much bloodshed in all Ireland (e.g. all 32 counties including
the 6 that formed Northern Ireland) both before and after separation.
But that tended to be militia on militia rather than the civilian
population being routinely targetted as was the case in most of the
other conflicts referred to above. I would argue that Irish
casualties were higher than they might have been due to the large
number of Irishmen who had served in the British Army 1914-18 and thus
had a far better idea of what weaponry could do than before 1914.
This includes plenty who ended up on both sides of the conflict.
[For what it's worth, Germany tried to form an Irish brigade from
Irish POWs taken in British service in WW1 but that was not a major
factor. One of them a man named Keogh played a significant role in the
Nazi party in the days before the Beer Hall putsch.]

Hmmm.

I know there has been a percentage of Irish who would fight with
the French because it annoyed John Bull. (I recall a Russian poet of
the 1970s with the family name of Ogrady. Yep. Gran'ther came to
Russia by way of Napoleon's Grand Army.)

tschus
pyotr

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:17:39 -0700, pyotr filipivich

Post by pyotr filipivich
I know there has been a percentage of Irish who would fight with
the French because it annoyed John Bull. (I recall a Russian poet of
the 1970s with the family name of Ogrady. Yep. Gran'ther came to
Russia by way of Napoleon's Grand Army.)

Well President-Marshal McMahon (1st president of the French 3rd
Republic) was descended from one such. And there have been numerous
Frenchmen of other foreign backgrounds. I'd argue Marie Curie (nee
Sklodowska) was the most famous Frenchwoman of them all.

I'm pretty sure I could name numerous others - but then the nation
that is culturally the strongest does tend to attract gifted
foreigners. Look at the heyday of the British Empire or post 1945
America - both have been enriched by gifted foreigners.

I admit you might not think that about William Shatner (whose birthday
was within the past week) and I have previously in this newsgroup
declared Celine Dion to be 'America's best reason to declare war on
Canada' but France, Britain and America have each in their turn
attracted all sorts of foreign notables and not just Fenians!

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:17:39 -0700, pyotr filipivich

Post by pyotr filipivich
I know there has been a percentage of Irish who would fight with
the French because it annoyed John Bull. (I recall a Russian poet of
the 1970s with the family name of Ogrady. Yep. Gran'ther came to
Russia by way of Napoleon's Grand Army.)

Well President-Marshal McMahon (1st president of the French 3rd
Republic) was descended from one such. And there have been numerous
Frenchmen of other foreign backgrounds. I'd argue Marie Curie (nee
Sklodowska) was the most famous Frenchwoman of them all.
I'm pretty sure I could name numerous others - but then the nation
that is culturally the strongest does tend to attract gifted
foreigners. Look at the heyday of the British Empire or post 1945
America - both have been enriched by gifted foreigners.
I admit you might not think that about William Shatner (whose birthday
was within the past week) and I have previously in this newsgroup
declared Celine Dion to be 'America's best reason to declare war on
Canada' but France, Britain and America have each in their turn
attracted all sorts of foreign notables and not just Fenians!

Oh yes.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:17:39 -0700, pyotr filipivich

Post by pyotr filipivich
I know there has been a percentage of Irish who would fight with
the French because it annoyed John Bull. (I recall a Russian poet of
the 1970s with the family name of Ogrady. Yep. Gran'ther came to
Russia by way of Napoleon's Grand Army.)

Well President-Marshal McMahon (1st president of the French 3rd
Republic) was descended from one such. And there have been numerous
Frenchmen of other foreign backgrounds. I'd argue Marie Curie (nee
Sklodowska) was the most famous Frenchwoman of them all.
I'm pretty sure I could name numerous others - but then the nation
that is culturally the strongest does tend to attract gifted
foreigners. Look at the heyday of the British Empire or post 1945
America - both have been enriched by gifted foreigners.
I admit you might not think that about William Shatner (whose birthday
was within the past week) and I have previously in this newsgroup
declared Celine Dion to be 'America's best reason to declare war on
Canada' but France, Britain and America have each in their turn
attracted all sorts of foreign notables and not just Fenians!

I thought Justin Beiber was America's best cause belli against Canada.

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:30:40 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by The Horny Goat
I admit you might not think that about William Shatner (whose birthday
was within the past week) and I have previously in this newsgroup
declared Celine Dion to be 'America's best reason to declare war on
Canada' but France, Britain and America have each in their turn
attracted all sorts of foreign notables and not just Fenians!

I thought Justin Beiber was America's best cause belli against Canada.

I'm sure the same was said about Shatner in his day though to the best
of my knowledge no one ever said that about Lorne Green who was a
wartime news reader for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (his
version of a small town in Canada being treated as Lidice in Bohemia
was is the stuff of legend) before heading south to star first in
Bonanza and much later in Battlestar Galactica.

[Graham Truesdale]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:17:39 -0700, pyotr filipivich

Post by pyotr filipivich
I know there has been a percentage of Irish who would fight with
the French because it annoyed John Bull. (I recall a Russian poet of
the 1970s with the family name of Ogrady. Yep. Gran'ther came to
Russia by way of Napoleon's Grand Army.)

Well President-Marshal McMahon (1st president of the French 3rd
Republic) was descended from one such. And there have been numerous
Frenchmen of other foreign backgrounds. I'd argue Marie Curie (nee
Sklodowska) was the most famous Frenchwoman of them all.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardo_O%27Higgins - son of County Sligo-born https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrosio_O%27Higgins,_1st_Marquis_of_Osorno

[Rich Rostrom]

Ireland leaving the UK in 1921-22 was relatively peaceful...

For a very odd value of peaceful. Guerrilla warfare,
and a fair amount of ethnic cleansing afterward.
Plus a lot of "great houses" belonging to British
landholding families burnt down.

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Ireland leaving the UK in 1921-22 was relatively peaceful...

For a very odd value of peaceful.

He did say "relatively peaceful". So, yes, peaceful, for some
value of "peaceful."

Post by Rich Rostrom
Guerrilla warfare, and a fair amount of ethnic cleansing afterward.
Plus a lot of "great houses" belonging to British landholding families burnt down.

"This is suppose to be a happy time. Lets not be whining about
who killed who."

[The Old Man]

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Rich Rostrom

Ireland leaving the UK in 1921-22 was relatively peaceful...

For a very odd value of peaceful.

He did say "relatively peaceful". So, yes, peaceful, for some
value of "peaceful."

Post by Rich Rostrom
Guerrilla warfare, and a fair amount of ethnic cleansing afterward.
Plus a lot of "great houses" belonging to British landholding families burnt down.

"This is suppose to be a happy time. Lets not be whining about
who killed who."
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.

I read in Popular Science today that it seems Kenya is in the process of physically splitting due to a faultline running through the middle of the country. 8^P

Regards,
John Braungart

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by The Old Man

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Rich Rostrom

Ireland leaving the UK in 1921-22 was relatively peaceful...

For a very odd value of peaceful.

He did say "relatively peaceful". So, yes, peaceful, for some
value of "peaceful."

Post by Rich Rostrom
Guerrilla warfare, and a fair amount of ethnic cleansing afterward.
Plus a lot of "great houses" belonging to British landholding families burnt down.

"This is suppose to be a happy time. Lets not be whining about
who killed who."

I read in Popular Science today that it seems Kenya is in the process of physically splitting due to a faultline running through the middle of the country. 8^P

I've seen that reported as "The Shocking* Crack In the Earth!
Africa is breaking!" - in another several hundred thousands of years.

Urrgh.

tschus
pyotr

*my rule of thumb: if it doesn't involve high levels of electrical
voltage - don't use "shocking" in the headline.

[SolomonW]

Post by pyotr filipivich
Was pondering the subject of partitioning countries, and the only
ones which I can think of in the last hundred years or so is the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics, and
the devolution of the Soviet Union into the Federated Russian States
and "the rest".
Not sure how to consider the partition of the British Raj into
Pakistan (East & West) and India. Yes, there was a lot of violence
(riots & pogroms), but was that a cause, or a result? or some other
factor? I don't think the partition of Pakistan into Pakistan and
Bangladesh was a smooth transition either.
Likewise, the break up of the Ottoman and Austria-Hungarian
Empires had as much to the "Empire" losing the war and being broken up
as anything. (And we all know how "South Slavia" - aka Yugoslavia -
transitioned into a Post Tito partition.)

Yugoslavia split peacefully but then the conflicts developed with several
wanting more.

Post by pyotr filipivich
But I'm not aware of any others which did not involve a war or two
to accomplish. Does anyone else?
tschus
pyotr

Norway and Sweden split peacefully.



The USSR could be said to have split relatively peacefully although it
could be argued legally they were always separate countries.

[Alex Milman]

Post by SolomonW

Post by pyotr filipivich
Was pondering the subject of partitioning countries, and the only
ones which I can think of in the last hundred years or so is the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics, and
the devolution of the Soviet Union into the Federated Russian States
and "the rest".
Not sure how to consider the partition of the British Raj into
Pakistan (East & West) and India. Yes, there was a lot of violence
(riots & pogroms), but was that a cause, or a result? or some other
factor? I don't think the partition of Pakistan into Pakistan and
Bangladesh was a smooth transition either.
Likewise, the break up of the Ottoman and Austria-Hungarian
Empires had as much to the "Empire" losing the war and being broken up
as anything. (And we all know how "South Slavia" - aka Yugoslavia -
transitioned into a Post Tito partition.)

Yugoslavia split peacefully but then the conflicts developed with several
wanting more.

Post by pyotr filipivich
But I'm not aware of any others which did not involve a war or two
to accomplish. Does anyone else?
tschus
pyotr

Norway and Sweden split peacefully.

They were not a single state, just union of the crowns.

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by Alex Milman

Post by SolomonW

Post by pyotr filipivich
Was pondering the subject of partitioning countries, and the only
ones which I can think of in the last hundred years or so is the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics, and
the devolution of the Soviet Union into the Federated Russian States
and "the rest".
Not sure how to consider the partition of the British Raj into
Pakistan (East & West) and India. Yes, there was a lot of violence
(riots & pogroms), but was that a cause, or a result? or some other
factor? I don't think the partition of Pakistan into Pakistan and
Bangladesh was a smooth transition either.
Likewise, the break up of the Ottoman and Austria-Hungarian
Empires had as much to the "Empire" losing the war and being broken up
as anything. (And we all know how "South Slavia" - aka Yugoslavia -
transitioned into a Post Tito partition.)

Yugoslavia split peacefully but then the conflicts developed with several
wanting more.

Post by pyotr filipivich
But I'm not aware of any others which did not involve a war or two
to accomplish. Does anyone else?

[snip]

Post by Alex Milman

Post by SolomonW
Norway and Sweden split peacefully.

They were not a single state, just union of the crowns.

Which seems to be a key factor in an amicable partition of a
state, clear distinctions between Us and Them, not merely
geographically, but culturally.

[SolomonW]

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Alex Milman

Post by SolomonW

Post by pyotr filipivich
Was pondering the subject of partitioning countries, and the only
ones which I can think of in the last hundred years or so is the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics, and
the devolution of the Soviet Union into the Federated Russian States
and "the rest".
Not sure how to consider the partition of the British Raj into
Pakistan (East & West) and India. Yes, there was a lot of violence
(riots & pogroms), but was that a cause, or a result? or some other
factor? I don't think the partition of Pakistan into Pakistan and
Bangladesh was a smooth transition either.
Likewise, the break up of the Ottoman and Austria-Hungarian
Empires had as much to the "Empire" losing the war and being broken up
as anything. (And we all know how "South Slavia" - aka Yugoslavia -
transitioned into a Post Tito partition.)

Yugoslavia split peacefully but then the conflicts developed with several
wanting more.

Post by pyotr filipivich
But I'm not aware of any others which did not involve a war or two
to accomplish. Does anyone else?

[snip]

Post by Alex Milman

Post by SolomonW
Norway and Sweden split peacefully.

They were not a single state, just union of the crowns.

Which seems to be a key factor in an amicable partition of a
state, clear distinctions between Us and Them, not merely
geographically, but culturally.

Although it's before your window, what about Australia and Canada becoming
independent? Culturally they were the same, but geographically they were
apart.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW
Although it's before your window, what about Australia and Canada becoming
independent? Culturally they were the same, but geographically they were
apart.

I would argue that this situation would deserve an asterisk.

My grandfather (born in Ireland but educated in Vancouver) was taught
Rule Britannia and the British Grenadiers in school.

50 years later I had heard of the Maple Leaf Forever but didn't know
it (other than "Wolfe the Donkless Hero Came" - though we worried
about what that line might mean! Uh - the word is actually 'dauntless'
which has a totally different meaning - few Canadian kids thought
England had castrati generals!) but certainly knew O Canada and God
Save the Queen. And thanks to the Boy Scouts I could tell at a glance
whether the Union Jack was upside down or not.

I was 10 years old when Canada shelved the Red Ensign in favor of the
Maple Leaf flag - and it was obvious when it was upside down and when
not. (I hesitate to guess how the Norwegians, Swedes and Finns would
tell! Or for that matter any of the tricolor countries like France,
Ireland or Italy!)

One of my great memories of my teens was listening to my grandfather
(who had twice run for the Canadian parliament) and wintered for most
of the 70s and 80s in California) tell me about his quizzing Americans
on how the stars on the flag were arranged - nearly everybody knew
that the flag had 50 stars but the exact arrangement was a mystery to
most Americans. (Nearly everybody knew the stripes were red and white
and that the top and bottom stripes were red)

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by SolomonW

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Alex Milman

Post by SolomonW

Post by pyotr filipivich
Was pondering the subject of partitioning countries, and the only
ones which I can think of in the last hundred years or so is the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics, and
the devolution of the Soviet Union into the Federated Russian States
and "the rest".
Not sure how to consider the partition of the British Raj into
Pakistan (East & West) and India. Yes, there was a lot of violence
(riots & pogroms), but was that a cause, or a result? or some other
factor? I don't think the partition of Pakistan into Pakistan and
Bangladesh was a smooth transition either.
Likewise, the break up of the Ottoman and Austria-Hungarian
Empires had as much to the "Empire" losing the war and being broken up
as anything. (And we all know how "South Slavia" - aka Yugoslavia -
transitioned into a Post Tito partition.)

Yugoslavia split peacefully but then the conflicts developed with several
wanting more.

Post by pyotr filipivich
But I'm not aware of any others which did not involve a war or two
to accomplish. Does anyone else?

[snip]

Post by Alex Milman

Post by SolomonW
Norway and Sweden split peacefully.

They were not a single state, just union of the crowns.

Which seems to be a key factor in an amicable partition of a
state, clear distinctions between Us and Them, not merely
geographically, but culturally.

Although it's before your window, what about Australia and Canada becoming
independent? Culturally they were the same, but geographically they were
apart.

Culturally they were "anglophone" - but as each will tell you
"We're not like them". (And the Kiwi's mock both of them too boot.)

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:03:46 -0700, pyotr filipivich

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by SolomonW
Although it's before your window, what about Australia and Canada becoming
independent? Culturally they were the same, but geographically they were
apart.

Culturally they were "anglophone" - but as each will tell you
"We're not like them". (And the Kiwi's mock both of them too boot.)

To be sure but things were much closer in 1914 which is what I was
talking about. Audio recordings suggest Aussie and Canadian accents
haven't shifted much in 100 years but the primary cultural thing
Aussies and Canadians have in common is "we're not Yanks and we're not
Brits" and god help the confused tourist who is confused on this
point.

Australia doesn't have nearly the regional variation in accents that
Canada does - BC and nearly all of Ontario (exception: Ottawa valley
and along the Quebec border) have the standard Canadian accents while
both Alberta and Nova Scotia are heavily influenced by CA/TX on the
one hand and New England on the other. So are Anglo-Montrealers though
quite different from Halifax.

As a Vancouver boy who went to business school in a well known
southern Ontario school I passed as a local most of the time but
occasionally made geographical references that made them say 'oh
right, Lyle's not from around here!" as opposed to the fellow from the
Icelanic central bank who everyone figured was German from his accent!

Henry Higgins could have nearly as much fun in Canada as in the US
especially now compared to when his character was written which was a
time when there were far more just off the boat Englishmen than is
true of Canada today.

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:42:20 -0700, pyotr filipivich

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Alex Milman
They were not a single state, just union of the crowns.

Which seems to be a key factor in an amicable partition of a
state, clear distinctions between Us and Them, not merely
geographically, but culturally.

If that were true England and Scotland would have parted long ago.

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:42:20 -0700, pyotr filipivich

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Alex Milman
They were not a single state, just union of the crowns.

Which seems to be a key factor in an amicable partition of a
state, clear distinctions between Us and Them, not merely
geographically, but culturally.

If that were true England and Scotland would have parted long ago.

England and Scotland are part of the United Kingdom. But ScotExit
could happen.
It just hasn't yet gotten the critical mass of support in
Scotland.

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by SolomonW

Post by pyotr filipivich
Was pondering the subject of partitioning countries, and the only
ones which I can think of in the last hundred years or so is the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics, and
the devolution of the Soviet Union into the Federated Russian States
and "the rest".
Not sure how to consider the partition of the British Raj into
Pakistan (East & West) and India. Yes, there was a lot of violence
(riots & pogroms), but was that a cause, or a result? or some other
factor? I don't think the partition of Pakistan into Pakistan and
Bangladesh was a smooth transition either.
Likewise, the break up of the Ottoman and Austria-Hungarian
Empires had as much to the "Empire" losing the war and being broken up
as anything. (And we all know how "South Slavia" - aka Yugoslavia -
transitioned into a Post Tito partition.)

Yugoslavia split peacefully but then the conflicts developed with several
wanting more.

That's the "issue" - first there is the partition, followed by the
border wars to "fix" things.

Post by SolomonW

Post by pyotr filipivich
But I'm not aware of any others which did not involve a war or two
to accomplish. Does anyone else?

Norway and Sweden split peacefully.

I'd forgotten about that.

Post by SolomonW
The USSR could be said to have split relatively peacefully although it
could be argued legally they were always separate countries.

One of the elements I'm discerning, is that "peaceful" partitions
depend on there being existing distinct ethnic and cultural regions
which can "easily" discerned, and all of Us live here, and all of Them
live there. The re-emergence of Finland & Poland in 1920, and the
Baltic states in the 1990s. Although both Finland and Poland had to
defend against invasion by the old empire under new management.
Some times, that doesn't work out well. The end of the Turkish
war of independence saw the "repatriation" of people who had never
lived in the other country, the division being primarily based upon
which religion you were.

[Alex Milman]

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by SolomonW

Post by pyotr filipivich
Was pondering the subject of partitioning countries, and the only
ones which I can think of in the last hundred years or so is the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics, and
the devolution of the Soviet Union into the Federated Russian States
and "the rest".
Not sure how to consider the partition of the British Raj into
Pakistan (East & West) and India. Yes, there was a lot of violence
(riots & pogroms), but was that a cause, or a result? or some other
factor? I don't think the partition of Pakistan into Pakistan and
Bangladesh was a smooth transition either.
Likewise, the break up of the Ottoman and Austria-Hungarian
Empires had as much to the "Empire" losing the war and being broken up
as anything. (And we all know how "South Slavia" - aka Yugoslavia -
transitioned into a Post Tito partition.)

Yugoslavia split peacefully but then the conflicts developed with several
wanting more.

That's the "issue" - first there is the partition, followed by the
border wars to "fix" things.

Post by SolomonW

Post by pyotr filipivich
But I'm not aware of any others which did not involve a war or two
to accomplish. Does anyone else?

Norway and Sweden split peacefully.

I'd forgotten about that.

Post by SolomonW
The USSR could be said to have split relatively peacefully although it
could be argued legally they were always separate countries.

One of the elements I'm discerning, is that "peaceful" partitions
depend on there being existing distinct ethnic and cultural regions
which can "easily" discerned, and all of Us live here, and all of Them
live there. The re-emergence of Finland & Poland in 1920,

Actually, Finland in 1917 and Poland in 1918.

Post by pyotr filipivich
and the
Baltic states in the 1990s.

Their "emergence" also was in 1917 - 18.

Post by pyotr filipivich
Although both Finland and Poland had to
defend against invasion by the old empire under new management.

Actually, the Polish-Soviet War started with the Polish offensive: they reached Kiev (which was not Polish since the late XVII) before being pushed into the defensive situation. And, of course, this innocent victim of a foreign invasion managed to grab a big chunk of Lithuania. :-)

As for the Finland, time span between 1818 and 1939 is too big to consider these two events as one.

[WolfBear]

Post by Alex Milman

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by SolomonW

Post by pyotr filipivich
Was pondering the subject of partitioning countries, and the only
ones which I can think of in the last hundred years or so is the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics, and
the devolution of the Soviet Union into the Federated Russian States
and "the rest".
Not sure how to consider the partition of the British Raj into
Pakistan (East & West) and India. Yes, there was a lot of violence
(riots & pogroms), but was that a cause, or a result? or some other
factor? I don't think the partition of Pakistan into Pakistan and
Bangladesh was a smooth transition either.
Likewise, the break up of the Ottoman and Austria-Hungarian
Empires had as much to the "Empire" losing the war and being broken up
as anything. (And we all know how "South Slavia" - aka Yugoslavia -
transitioned into a Post Tito partition.)

Yugoslavia split peacefully but then the conflicts developed with several
wanting more.

That's the "issue" - first there is the partition, followed by the
border wars to "fix" things.

Post by SolomonW

Post by pyotr filipivich
But I'm not aware of any others which did not involve a war or two
to accomplish. Does anyone else?

Norway and Sweden split peacefully.

I'd forgotten about that.

Post by SolomonW
The USSR could be said to have split relatively peacefully although it
could be argued legally they were always separate countries.

One of the elements I'm discerning, is that "peaceful" partitions
depend on there being existing distinct ethnic and cultural regions
which can "easily" discerned, and all of Us live here, and all of Them
live there. The re-emergence of Finland & Poland in 1920,

Actually, Finland in 1917 and Poland in 1918.

Post by pyotr filipivich
and the
Baltic states in the 1990s.

Their "emergence" also was in 1917 - 18.

Post by pyotr filipivich
Although both Finland and Poland had to
defend against invasion by the old empire under new management.

Actually, the Polish-Soviet War started with the Polish offensive: they reached Kiev (which was not Polish since the late XVII) before being pushed into the defensive situation. And, of course, this innocent victim of a foreign invasion managed to grab a big chunk of Lithuania. :-)
As for the Finland, time span between 1818 and 1939 is too big to consider these two events as one.

1818 or 1918?

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by Alex Milman

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by SolomonW

Post by pyotr filipivich
Was pondering the subject of partitioning countries, and the only
ones which I can think of in the last hundred years or so is the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics, and
the devolution of the Soviet Union into the Federated Russian States
and "the rest".
Not sure how to consider the partition of the British Raj into
Pakistan (East & West) and India. Yes, there was a lot of violence
(riots & pogroms), but was that a cause, or a result? or some other
factor? I don't think the partition of Pakistan into Pakistan and
Bangladesh was a smooth transition either.
Likewise, the break up of the Ottoman and Austria-Hungarian
Empires had as much to the "Empire" losing the war and being broken up
as anything. (And we all know how "South Slavia" - aka Yugoslavia -
transitioned into a Post Tito partition.)

Yugoslavia split peacefully but then the conflicts developed with several
wanting more.

That's the "issue" - first there is the partition, followed by the
border wars to "fix" things.

Post by SolomonW

Post by pyotr filipivich
But I'm not aware of any others which did not involve a war or two
to accomplish. Does anyone else?

Norway and Sweden split peacefully.

I'd forgotten about that.

Post by SolomonW
The USSR could be said to have split relatively peacefully although it
could be argued legally they were always separate countries.

One of the elements I'm discerning, is that "peaceful" partitions
depend on there being existing distinct ethnic and cultural regions
which can "easily" discerned, and all of Us live here, and all of Them
live there. The re-emergence of Finland & Poland in 1920,

Actually, Finland in 1917 and Poland in 1918.

Post by pyotr filipivich
and the
Baltic states in the 1990s.

Their "emergence" also was in 1917 - 18.

Okay. I had been working (extrapolating?) from memory.

Post by Alex Milman

Post by pyotr filipivich
Although both Finland and Poland had to
defend against invasion by the old empire under new management.

Actually, the Polish-Soviet War started with the Polish offensive: they reached Kiev (which was not Polish since the late XVII) before being pushed into the defensive situation. And, of course, this innocent victim of a foreign invasion managed to grab a big chunk of Lithuania. :-)

And people wonder why the Russians do not trust "The West" -
constant invasions by "westerners". B-)

What is the Polish for "a preemptive retaliatory first strike"?

Post by Alex Milman
As for the Finland, time span between 1818 and 1939 is too big to consider these two events as one.

Memories go back a long ways in parts of the world.

[Alex Milman]

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Alex Milman

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by SolomonW

Post by pyotr filipivich
Was pondering the subject of partitioning countries, and the only
ones which I can think of in the last hundred years or so is the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics, and
the devolution of the Soviet Union into the Federated Russian States
and "the rest".
Not sure how to consider the partition of the British Raj into
Pakistan (East & West) and India. Yes, there was a lot of violence
(riots & pogroms), but was that a cause, or a result? or some other
factor? I don't think the partition of Pakistan into Pakistan and
Bangladesh was a smooth transition either.
Likewise, the break up of the Ottoman and Austria-Hungarian
Empires had as much to the "Empire" losing the war and being broken up
as anything. (And we all know how "South Slavia" - aka Yugoslavia -
transitioned into a Post Tito partition.)

Yugoslavia split peacefully but then the conflicts developed with several
wanting more.

That's the "issue" - first there is the partition, followed by the
border wars to "fix" things.

Post by SolomonW

Post by pyotr filipivich
But I'm not aware of any others which did not involve a war or two
to accomplish. Does anyone else?

Norway and Sweden split peacefully.

I'd forgotten about that.

Post by SolomonW
The USSR could be said to have split relatively peacefully although it
could be argued legally they were always separate countries.

One of the elements I'm discerning, is that "peaceful" partitions
depend on there being existing distinct ethnic and cultural regions
which can "easily" discerned, and all of Us live here, and all of Them
live there. The re-emergence of Finland & Poland in 1920,

Actually, Finland in 1917 and Poland in 1918.

Post by pyotr filipivich
and the
Baltic states in the 1990s.

Their "emergence" also was in 1917 - 18.

Okay. I had been working (extrapolating?) from memory.

Why bother? Google & Wiki are easily available. :-)

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Alex Milman

Post by pyotr filipivich
Although both Finland and Poland had to
defend against invasion by the old empire under new management.

Actually, the Polish-Soviet War started with the Polish offensive: they reached Kiev (which was not Polish since the late XVII) before being pushed into the defensive situation. And, of course, this innocent victim of a foreign invasion managed to grab a big chunk of Lithuania. :-)

And people wonder why the Russians do not trust "The West" -
constant invasions by "westerners". B-)

Ah well, this is quite selective: the Poles keep remembering the Partitions (for which they tend to blame anybody but themselves) and the wars of the XX century (starting from the 2nd part of the Soviet-Polish War :-)) while the Russians remember Polish invasions of the XVI - XVII (Time of Troubles) and the 1st part of the Polish-Soviet War. :-)

Actually, in 1920s - early 30s all Soviet military plans viewed Poland as the main potential adversary (supported by the French and British imperialists) so it should not come as a big surprise that the events of 1939 had been considered as something worthy of a celebration.

Post by pyotr filipivich
What is the Polish for "a preemptive retaliatory first strike"?

Probably they have something suitable. :-)

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Alex Milman
As for the Finland, time span between 1818 and 1939 is too big to consider these two events as one.

Memories go back a long ways in parts of the world.

I'd assume that the Winter War was only partially triggered by Stalin's memories of the imperial Russia: a danger of having border too close to the 2nd biggest city in the SU was quite obvious. Of course, it is anybody's guess if the Finns would side with the Nazis without the Winter War.

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 09:38:53 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman

Post by Alex Milman
Ah well, this is quite selective: the Poles keep remembering the Partitions (for which they tend to blame anybody but themselves) and the wars of the XX century (starting from the 2nd part of the Soviet-Polish War :-)) while the Russians remember Polish invasions of the XVI - XVII (Time of Troubles) and the 1st part of the Polish-Soviet War. :-)
Actually, in 1920s - early 30s all Soviet military plans viewed Poland as the main potential adversary (supported by the French and British imperialists) so it should not come as a big surprise that the events of 1939 had been considered as something worthy of a celebration.

I share your views.

I assume you have heard the joke about the patriotic Pole who found a
magic lantern, rubbed it and out popped a genie who offered the usual
3 wishes.

Wish #1! I want a raging army of Mongols to burn rape and pillage
their way across Russia then stop at the Polish border and then turn
around and go home.

Genie says "your will be done, disappears in a puff of smoke"

The next day he returns saying it's time for wish #2. The Pole says
"same as yesterday's wish!"

Genie says "your will be done, disappears in a puff of smoke"

Genie returns the third day saying "Now it's time for wish #3" and the
Pole says "same as the last two days!"

Genie says "your will be done, But before I do this please tell me why
you wanted these wishes?"

Pole says "that way Russia gets devastated SIX times!"

Which pretty much describes how the Poles have long felt about Russia.
Other than 1939-45 Poles haven't felt that way about Germany and in
pre-modern times usually solved any difficulties by royal marriages
with Prussian and other German states.

While early on Poland definitely had the power to destroy early
Prussia (which would certainly create huge butterflies) they didn't
particularly fight with Prussia after Prussia adopted Christianity.

Have just finished Thomas Weber's "Becoming Hitler: The Making of a
Nazi" wihch dealt with Hitler's life 1918-1924. He notes that in his
early days (including Mein Kampf) Hitler rarely said anything at all
about Poland and only adopted genocide as part of his platform in
1923. He traces Hitler's policy on Russia extensively which started as
originally favoring a German-Russian alliance after the fall of
Communism (which Hitler expected to happen immediately on the death of
Lenin) and only after it was clear that Russia wasn't collapsing or
likely to form a non-communist state any time soon began advocating
any form of 'ethnic cleaning' or genocide. Hitler began Mein Kampf
while in prison and completed it shortly after his release.

Interesting book - I enjoyed it a lot.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by The Horny Goat
Which pretty much describes how the Poles have long
felt about Russia. Other than 1939-45 Poles haven't
felt that way about Germany...

Many Poles came under German (Prussian) rule in the
Partitions, and then until 1918. And they were not
happy about it.

Joke:

A Polish soldier sees a German attacking from the
west, and a Russian attacking from the east. Which
one does he shoot first?

Answer in rot-13:

Gur Trezna - ohfvarff orsber cyrnfher.

[WolfBear]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by The Horny Goat
Which pretty much describes how the Poles have long
felt about Russia. Other than 1939-45 Poles haven't
felt that way about Germany...

Many Poles came under German (Prussian) rule in the
Partitions, and then until 1918. And they were not
happy about it.
A Polish soldier sees a German attacking from the
west, and a Russian attacking from the east. Which
one does he shoot first?
Gur Trezna - ohfvarff orsber cyrnfher.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

I don't get it. :(

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by The Horny Goat
Which pretty much describes how the Poles have long
felt about Russia. Other than 1939-45 Poles haven't
felt that way about Germany...

Many Poles came under German (Prussian) rule in the
Partitions, and then until 1918. And they were not
happy about it.
A Polish soldier sees a German attacking from the
west, and a Russian attacking from the east. Which
one does he shoot first?

Similar joke was after the Army took control of Poland in the 80s.

So, general, if there is an uprising by Solidarity, and an
intervention from our Fraternal Socialist Allies, what would the
Polish army do?
We would, of course, first suppress the uprising, then deal with
the invasion. After all ....

[rot 13] "... ohfvarff orsber cyrnfher.

[Alex Milman]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by The Horny Goat
Which pretty much describes how the Poles have long
felt about Russia. Other than 1939-45 Poles haven't
felt that way about Germany...

Many Poles came under German (Prussian) rule in the
Partitions, and then until 1918. And they were not
happy about it.

A happy Polish "patriot" would be a rather peculiar animal. :-)

However, during the WWI the Polish leadership sided with the Central powers in exchange for a promised puppet state (with a predictable crisis over oath of loyalty). The Germans, in their view, had been better than the Russians.

Then, again, the "Poles" in this context do not represent ALL Poles: quite a few of them had been sticking to Russia.

Post by Rich Rostrom
A Polish soldier sees a German attacking from the
west, and a Russian attacking from the east. Which
one does he shoot first?
Gur Trezna - ohfvarff orsber cyrnfher.

Translation, please. :-)

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Rich Rostrom
Gur Trezna - ohfvarff orsber cyrnfher.

Translation, please. :-)

Rot-13 simply means all characters shifted
by 13 positions in the alphabet A->N, B->O...
M->Z, N->A...

Most newsreaders and mailtools have rot-13
function.

It's not actual encipherment, just an easy
way to hide spoilers.

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by Alex Milman

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Alex Milman

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by SolomonW
The USSR could be said to have split relatively peacefully although it
could be argued legally they were always separate countries.

One of the elements I'm discerning, is that "peaceful" partitions
depend on there being existing distinct ethnic and cultural regions
which can "easily" discerned, and all of Us live here, and all of Them
live there. The re-emergence of Finland & Poland in 1920,

Actually, Finland in 1917 and Poland in 1918.

Post by pyotr filipivich
and the
Baltic states in the 1990s.

Their "emergence" also was in 1917 - 18.

Okay. I had been working (extrapolating?) from memory.

Why bother? Google & Wiki are easily available. :-)

Sometimes, when it isn't critical, I don't. Other times, I'll
double check.
Used to have several history references in the bookcase next to
the computer. But I don't have that bookcase anymore.

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by Alex Milman

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Alex Milman

Post by pyotr filipivich
Although both Finland and Poland had to
defend against invasion by the old empire under new management.

Actually, the Polish-Soviet War started with the Polish offensive: they reached Kiev (which was not Polish since the late XVII) before being pushed into the defensive situation. And, of course, this innocent victim of a foreign invasion managed to grab a big chunk of Lithuania. :-)

And people wonder why the Russians do not trust "The West" -
constant invasions by "westerners". B-)

Ah well, this is quite selective: the Poles keep remembering the Partitions (for which they tend to blame anybody but themselves) and the wars of the XX century (starting from the 2nd part of the Soviet-Polish War :-)) while the Russians remember Polish invasions of the XVI - XVII (Time of Troubles) and the 1st part of the Polish-Soviet War. :-)

"Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who."

Post by Alex Milman
Actually, in 1920s - early 30s all Soviet military plans viewed Poland as the main potential adversary (supported by the French and British imperialists) so it should not come as a big surprise that the events of 1939 had been considered as something worthy of a celebration.

Reasonable, considering the trouble they'd had "back in the day".

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Alex Milman

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Alex Milman

Post by pyotr filipivich
Although both Finland and Poland had to
defend against invasion by the old empire under new management.

Actually, the Polish-Soviet War started with the Polish offensive: they reached Kiev (which was not Polish since the late XVII) before being pushed into the defensive situation. And, of course, this innocent victim of a foreign invasion managed to grab a big chunk of Lithuania. :-)

And people wonder why the Russians do not trust "The West" -
constant invasions by "westerners". B-)

Ah well, this is quite selective: the Poles keep remembering the Partitions (for which they tend to blame anybody but themselves) and the wars of the XX century (starting from the 2nd part of the Soviet-Polish War :-)) while the Russians remember Polish invasions of the XVI - XVII (Time of Troubles) and the 1st part of the Polish-Soviet War. :-)

"Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who."

But if you don't, how are your descendants going to carry on the
tradition of bickering and arguing over who killed you? :P

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Alex Milman

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Alex Milman

Post by pyotr filipivich
Although both Finland and Poland had to
defend against invasion by the old empire under new management.

Actually, the Polish-Soviet War started with the Polish offensive: they reached Kiev (which was not Polish since the late XVII) before being pushed into the defensive situation. And, of course, this innocent victim of a foreign invasion managed to grab a big chunk of Lithuania. :-)

And people wonder why the Russians do not trust "The West" -
constant invasions by "westerners". B-)

Ah well, this is quite selective: the Poles keep remembering the Partitions (for which they tend to blame anybody but themselves) and the wars of the XX century (starting from the 2nd part of the Soviet-Polish War :-)) while the Russians remember Polish invasions of the XVI - XVII (Time of Troubles) and the 1st part of the Polish-Soviet War. :-)

"Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who."

But if you don't, how are your descendants going to carry on the
tradition of bickering and arguing over who killed you? :P

We're not bickering - They, of course, were wrong.

On a side note, one of the problems of the US is that we, by and
large, lack what I call The Geography of History. There are few
places where we can point and say "There is where they massacred us,
but there is where we righteously smote them hip and thigh."

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Alex Milman

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Alex Milman

Post by pyotr filipivich
Although both Finland and Poland had to
defend against invasion by the old empire under new management.

Actually, the Polish-Soviet War started with the Polish offensive: they reached Kiev (which was not Polish since the late XVII) before being pushed into the defensive situation. And, of course, this innocent victim of a foreign invasion managed to grab a big chunk of Lithuania. :-)

And people wonder why the Russians do not trust "The West" -
constant invasions by "westerners". B-)

Ah well, this is quite selective: the Poles keep remembering the Partitions (for which they tend to blame anybody but themselves) and the wars of the XX century (starting from the 2nd part of the Soviet-Polish War :-)) while the Russians remember Polish invasions of the XVI - XVII (Time of Troubles) and the 1st part of the Polish-Soviet War. :-)

"Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who."

But if you don't, how are your descendants going to carry on the
tradition of bickering and arguing over who killed you? :P

We're not bickering - They, of course, were wrong.
On a side note, one of the problems of the US is that we, by and
large, lack what I call The Geography of History. There are few
places where we can point and say "There is where they massacred us,
but there is where we righteously smote them hip and thigh."

While driving across a largely empty part of the US once the thought
came to me that in the US a hundred miles is nothing; in Europe its
another country; in the US events 200 years ago are ancient history; in
Europe events 200 years ago are why you are at war now.

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by pyotr filipivich
We're not bickering - They, of course, were wrong.
On a side note, one of the problems of the US is that we, by and
large, lack what I call The Geography of History. There are few
places where we can point and say "There is where they massacred us,
but there is where we righteously smote them hip and thigh."

While driving across a largely empty part of the US once the thought
came to me that in the US a hundred miles is nothing; in Europe its
another country; in the US events 200 years ago are ancient history; in
Europe events 200 years ago are why you are at war now.

I've heard it as "In Europe, a hundred miles is a long ways, in
the States, a hundred years is a long time ago."

[Alex Milman]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Alex Milman

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Alex Milman

Post by pyotr filipivich
Although both Finland and Poland had to
defend against invasion by the old empire under new management.

Actually, the Polish-Soviet War started with the Polish offensive: they reached Kiev (which was not Polish since the late XVII) before being pushed into the defensive situation. And, of course, this innocent victim of a foreign invasion managed to grab a big chunk of Lithuania. :-)

And people wonder why the Russians do not trust "The West" -
constant invasions by "westerners". B-)

Ah well, this is quite selective: the Poles keep remembering the Partitions (for which they tend to blame anybody but themselves) and the wars of the XX century (starting from the 2nd part of the Soviet-Polish War :-)) while the Russians remember Polish invasions of the XVI - XVII (Time of Troubles) and the 1st part of the Polish-Soviet War. :-)

"Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who."

But if you don't, how are your descendants going to carry on the
tradition of bickering and arguing over who killed you? :P

That's rather simple: a side from which you can get money right now are the good guys (as of right now) and the bad guys are defined based upon the same principle. :-)

[jerry kraus]

Post by pyotr filipivich
Was pondering the subject of partitioning countries, and the only
ones which I can think of in the last hundred years or so is the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics, and
the devolution of the Soviet Union into the Federated Russian States
and "the rest".
Not sure how to consider the partition of the British Raj into
Pakistan (East & West) and India. Yes, there was a lot of violence
(riots & pogroms), but was that a cause, or a result? or some other
factor? I don't think the partition of Pakistan into Pakistan and
Bangladesh was a smooth transition either.
Likewise, the break up of the Ottoman and Austria-Hungarian
Empires had as much to the "Empire" losing the war and being broken up
as anything. (And we all know how "South Slavia" - aka Yugoslavia -
transitioned into a Post Tito partition.)
But I'm not aware of any others which did not involve a war or two
to accomplish. Does anyone else?
tschus
pyotr
--
Here are some objective realities. Aristotle was not Belgian!
The central message of Buddhism is not every man for himself!
And the London Underground is not a political movement!

How about the return of the Panama Canal zone to Panama, by the U.S.? How about Israel's return of the Sinai to Egypt? Really, any "split", is just a rearrangement of territory. Not really sure the devolution of the Soviet Union was really that all peaceful, actually. And, it seems to have have resulted in many subsequent military conflicts, that are ongoing.

[SolomonW]

Post by jerry kraus

Post by pyotr filipivich
Was pondering the subject of partitioning countries, and the only
ones which I can think of in the last hundred years or so is the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics, and
the devolution of the Soviet Union into the Federated Russian States
and "the rest".
Not sure how to consider the partition of the British Raj into
Pakistan (East & West) and India. Yes, there was a lot of violence
(riots & pogroms), but was that a cause, or a result? or some other
factor? I don't think the partition of Pakistan into Pakistan and
Bangladesh was a smooth transition either.
Likewise, the break up of the Ottoman and Austria-Hungarian
Empires had as much to the "Empire" losing the war and being broken up
as anything. (And we all know how "South Slavia" - aka Yugoslavia -
transitioned into a Post Tito partition.)
But I'm not aware of any others which did not involve a war or two
to accomplish. Does anyone else?
tschus
pyotr
--
Here are some objective realities. Aristotle was not Belgian!
The central message of Buddhism is not every man for himself!
And the London Underground is not a political movement!

How about the return of the Panama Canal zone to Panama, by the U.S.? How about Israel's return of the Sinai to Egypt? Really, any "split", is just a rearrangement of territory.

These examples are two already different countries rearranging their
territory.

Post by jerry kraus
Not really sure the devolution of the Soviet Union was really that all peaceful, actually. And, it seems to have have resulted in many subsequent military conflicts, that are ongoing.

It could certainly be argued that, it could also be argued that these
military conflicts are fairly minor for the scale of the change.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW

Post by jerry kraus
How about the return of the Panama Canal zone to Panama, by the U.S.? How about Israel's return of the Sinai to Egypt? Really, any "split", is just a rearrangement of territory.

These examples are two already different countries rearranging their
territory.

Had Barack Obama been born 6 months earlier the 2008 election would
have been the first election where neither candidate was born in a
state (1) - McCain was born in a Canal Zone military hospital and
Obama was born 6 months after Hawaiian statehood. Children born on US
military bases are of course considered 'natural born' for purposes of
eligibility for president. So is anybody born in a US territory that
is not a state.

The last candidate not born in a state was Barry Goldwater (1964) who
was born in Arizona before its 1912 statehood.

(1) exception: anybody born before 1776.....

[WolfBear]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by SolomonW

Post by jerry kraus
How about the return of the Panama Canal zone to Panama, by the U.S.? How about Israel's return of the Sinai to Egypt? Really, any "split", is just a rearrangement of territory.

These examples are two already different countries rearranging their
territory.

Had Barack Obama been born 6 months earlier the 2008 election would
have been the first election where neither candidate was born in a
state (1) - McCain was born in a Canal Zone military hospital and
Obama was born 6 months after Hawaiian statehood. Children born on US
military bases are of course considered 'natural born' for purposes of
eligibility for president. So is anybody born in a US territory that
is not a state.
The last candidate not born in a state was Barry Goldwater (1964) who
was born in Arizona before its 1912 statehood.
(1) exception: anybody born before 1776.....

Actually, Obama was born in 1961 and Hawaii became a U.S. state in 1959.

[Rich Rostrom]

Children born on US military bases are of course
considered 'natural born' for purposes of
eligibility for president.

I don't think that is necessarily true. A child
born to foreign national parents in a US military
hospital outside the US would have no claim to US
citizenship; while the base enjoys some forms of
extraterritoriality, it is not sovereign US territory.

McCain was of course the child of US citizens, so the
point is moot in his case.

[pyotr filipivich]

Children born on US military bases are of course considered 'natural born' for purposes of
eligibility for president. So is anybody born in a US territory that
is not a state.

Children born in a US Military Hospital are children born in said
hospital. If their parents are US Citizens, the child is also a US
citizen. But the Host country might consider them nationals and
subject to military service, etc.

This can be an issue if you were born in Turkey, leave the country
when your parents PCS to CONUS (usually), and then, totally unaware of
this, are arrested in Turkey 30 years later for evading military
service.

I heard of a US Army General who was asked at his retirement party
by the Argentine ambassador, if he was ready to 'come home & do his
military service?'. It was a semi-serious question.

[Pete Barrett]

Post by pyotr filipivich
But I'm not aware of any others which did not involve a war or two
to accomplish. Does anyone else?

Iceland (split from Denmark 1944)? You could argue that the invasion of
Denmark by Germany and Iceland by Britain in 1940 was part of the reason,
but the act of union was due to expire anyway. (https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/History_of_Iceland#Home_rule_and_sovereignty)

Singapore? (Was part of Malaysia for 2 years, then became an independent
republic in 1965.) I recall the fact, but not the reasons for the split,
and while the Wikipedia article on Malaysia says Singapore was expelled
(without saying why), the article on Singapore merely states that it
became independent.

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:24:35 +0000 (UTC), Pete Barrett

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by pyotr filipivich
But I'm not aware of any others which did not involve a war or two
to accomplish. Does anyone else?

Iceland (split from Denmark 1944)? You could argue that the invasion of
Denmark by Germany and Iceland by Britain in 1940 was part of the reason,
but the act of union was due to expire anyway. (https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/History_of_Iceland#Home_rule_and_sovereignty)

The argument presumably being to what extent Denmark was truly
independent and thus able to make meaningful decisions in 1944.

My answer would be 'not very'

Post by Pete Barrett
Singapore? (Was part of Malaysia for 2 years, then became an independent
republic in 1965.) I recall the fact, but not the reasons for the split,
and while the Wikipedia article on Malaysia says Singapore was expelled
(without saying why), the article on Singapore merely states that it
became independent.

[Pete Barrett]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Pete Barrett
Iceland (split from Denmark 1944)? You could argue that the invasion of
Denmark by Germany and Iceland by Britain in 1940 was part of the reason,
but the act of union was due to expire anyway.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/History_of_Iceland#Home_rule_and_sovereignty)

The argument presumably being to what extent Denmark was truly
independent and thus able to make meaningful decisions in 1944.
My answer would be 'not very'

The Icelanders made the decision, and I assume they were independent
enough to do so. The point is that the act of union was both peacefully
obtained and time limited - and when it expired, Iceland became
independent.

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:13:53 +0000 (UTC), Pete Barrett

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Pete Barrett
Iceland (split from Denmark 1944)? You could argue that the invasion of
Denmark by Germany and Iceland by Britain in 1940 was part of the reason,
but the act of union was due to expire anyway.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/History_of_Iceland#Home_rule_and_sovereignty)

The argument presumably being to what extent Denmark was truly
independent and thus able to make meaningful decisions in 1944.
My answer would be 'not very'

The Icelanders made the decision, and I assume they were independent
enough to do so. The point is that the act of union was both peacefully
obtained and time limited - and when it expired, Iceland became
independent.

During the Anglo-American (mostly American) wartime occupation of
Iceland the Allies did pretty much what they wanted to (1) move
equipment from the US and Canada to Europe and (2) conduct anti U-biat
operations. Subect to that they pretty much let the Icelanders rule
themselves.

One could argue the US "occupation" of England in 1941-45 ("overpaid,
over-sexed and over here") was far more intrusive.

[g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk]

Post by pyotr filipivich
Was pondering the subject of partitioning countries, and the only
ones which I can think of in the last hundred years or so is the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics, and
the devolution of the Soviet Union into the Federated Russian States
and "the rest".

...

Post by pyotr filipivich
But I'm not aware of any others which did not involve a war or two
to accomplish. Does anyone else?

Serbia and Montenegro split very peacefully, all things considered.

United Arab Republic split relatively peacefully, though a coup has been
involved.

Split of the Netherlands Antilles has been perfectly peaceful.

Senegambia split peacefully.

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk

Post by pyotr filipivich
Was pondering the subject of partitioning countries, and the only
ones which I can think of in the last hundred years or so is the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics, and
the devolution of the Soviet Union into the Federated Russian States
and "the rest".

...

Post by pyotr filipivich
But I'm not aware of any others which did not involve a war or two
to accomplish. Does anyone else?

Serbia and Montenegro split very peacefully, all things considered.

Sometimes, the fact that things went badly nearby, means you can
decide that fighting is not a good idea.

Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
United Arab Republic split relatively peacefully, though a coup has been
involved.

Coup d'Etate Not sure how to score that, but as it is primarily a
change at the top, "it is good."

Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
Split of the Netherlands Antilles has been perfectly peaceful.
Senegambia split peacefully.

Thanks. I'll look them up.

pyotr

[SolomonW]

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
Serbia and Montenegro split very peacefully, all things considered.

Sometimes, the fact that things went badly nearby, means you can
decide that fighting is not a good idea.

I think you need to provide a definition of what is a peaceful split. Say
100,000,000 leave a union and one person dies is it peaceful? Say a 100
die, say a million die?

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by SolomonW

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
Serbia and Montenegro split very peacefully, all things considered.

Sometimes, the fact that things went badly nearby, means you can
decide that fighting is not a good idea.

I think you need to provide a definition of what is a peaceful split. Say
100,000,000 leave a union and one person dies is it peaceful? Say a 100
die, say a million die?

That's a good question. It shows you are thinking. If there are
no more questions, then class is dismissed for the day.

I am inclined to put the British 1948 partition of India in the
"peaceful" column, as there was (at least as far as I know) not a lot
of "organized" strife in the sense of two or more armies battling it
out for the hearts and minds/independence, what-ever.
I'm not sure how to count "ethnic cleansing" where "your kind
ought to leave"

[The Horny Goat]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 19:00:43 -0700, pyotr filipivich

Post by pyotr filipivich
That's a good question. It shows you are thinking. If there are
no more questions, then class is dismissed for the day.
I am inclined to put the British 1948 partition of India in the
"peaceful" column, as there was (at least as far as I know) not a lot
of "organized" strife in the sense of two or more armies battling it
out for the hearts and minds/independence, what-ever.
I'm not sure how to count "ethnic cleansing" where "your kind
ought to leave"

The figures I've seen show 2-3 million dead and about 14-15 million
displaced. That's not my idea of "peaceful" - and is considerably
bloodier than WW2 from the beginning through the invasion of Russia
which is a roughly comparable period.

[WolfBear]

Post by pyotr filipivich
Was pondering the subject of partitioning countries, and the only
ones which I can think of in the last hundred years or so is the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics, and
the devolution of the Soviet Union into the Federated Russian States
and "the rest".
Not sure how to consider the partition of the British Raj into
Pakistan (East & West) and India. Yes, there was a lot of violence
(riots & pogroms), but was that a cause, or a result? or some other
factor? I don't think the partition of Pakistan into Pakistan and
Bangladesh was a smooth transition either.
Likewise, the break up of the Ottoman and Austria-Hungarian
Empires had as much to the "Empire" losing the war and being broken up
as anything. (And we all know how "South Slavia" - aka Yugoslavia -
transitioned into a Post Tito partition.)
But I'm not aware of any others which did not involve a war or two
to accomplish. Does anyone else?
tschus
pyotr
--
Here are some objective realities. Aristotle was not Belgian!
The central message of Buddhism is not every man for himself!
And the London Underground is not a political movement!

Getting to this topic, I wonder if any countries other than the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia would have broken up if they would have also fallen under Communist rule. For instance, could Indonesia and Iraq have both broken up after the collapse of Communism had both of them fallen under Communist rule?

[g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk]

Post by WolfBear
Getting to this topic, I wonder if any countries other than the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia would have broken up if they would have also fallen under Communist rule. For instance, could Indonesia and Iraq have both broken up after the collapse of Communism had both of them fallen under Communist rule?

Do bits and pieces falling off count, or the whole country has to
disintegrate, without leaving the rump successor around?

China is certainly a possibility. And she *did* split up, in a fashion.

Post-socialist Finland could see Åland declaring independence (and being
promptly annexed by Sweden, with approval of the island population).

Iraqi Kurdistan proclaiming independence is indeed possible, though Turkey
would not be happy and do everything to thwart it.

Afghanistan could easily disintegrate into warlord fiefdoms, but
international recognition would be uncertain.

Ukraine could see Russian speaking areas breaking away piece by piece
(and the pieces joining Russia, if Russian political leaders are
brave enough to face the international backslash).

The collapse of Communism in Socialist Austria-Hungary would almost
guarantee the disintegration.

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 07:19:43 +0000 (UTC),

Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
The collapse of Communism in Socialist Austria-Hungary would almost
guarantee the disintegration.

From my readings my impression is that a Communist regime in any part
of Austria-Hungary anywhere outside Hungary (where Bela Kun's regime
could have lasted a LOT longer without Rumanian intervention - which
in my opinion is why Rumania was treated so well at Versailles) would
be most unlikely.

I don't see Communism in 1918-19 Austria, Bohemia, Slovakia or Croatia
/ Slovenia or any other former A-H lands - do you? If so where?

In my opinion the main reason why Versasilles forced the Czechs and
Slovaks together was their view that neither had a hope of survival
against a resurgent Germany, Austria or Hungary alone but MIGHT
survive together. I don't think anyone at Versailles thought a
Czechoslovakia would ever be under the thumb of Russia as happened 30
years later.

(Although I'm quite sure several Versailles diplomats thought "this
settlement had better work or we'll be back here all over again in
20-30 years!" From his writing that certainly seemed to be the view of
Harold Nicholson!)

[g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 07:19:43 +0000 (UTC),

Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
The collapse of Communism in Socialist Austria-Hungary would almost
guarantee the disintegration.

From my readings my impression is that a Communist regime in any part
of Austria-Hungary anywhere outside Hungary (where Bela Kun's regime
could have lasted a LOT longer without Rumanian intervention - which
in my opinion is why Rumania was treated so well at Versailles) would
be most unlikely.
I don't see Communism in 1918-19 Austria, Bohemia, Slovakia or Croatia
/ Slovenia or any other former A-H lands - do you? If so where?

That was tongue in cheek :-) But everything is possible with the right
POD. Who would say that Bohemia would be one of the few regions where
communists would win elections fair and square? (that is, reasonably
fair given the circumstances...).

For A-H, any dictatorship would suffice - after return to democracy, it
*will* disintegrate. The question is only into how many pieces, and
(especially) if it keeps Bosnia, Yugoslavia-style civil war is possible.

I can imagine A-H surviving WWI (let's say Germany gets Lenin &
Brest-Litovsk as in OTL, then she's more successful with the last ditch
offensive in France and gets status quo ante bellum in the West +
reparations + loss of colonies + demilitarized Ruhr, while
simultaneously Masaryk and Piłsudski manage to offend the French so
there is no Czechoslovakia and Germany keeps her eastern borders
intact).
A-H would hold together with spit and straw until the alt-Nazis start
alt-WWII that ends with USSR rolling over Eastern Europe similarly to
OTL, and cementing socialist A-H federation, SFRJ-style.

Post by The Horny Goat
In my opinion the main reason why Versasilles forced the Czechs and
Slovaks together was their view that neither had a hope of survival
against a resurgent Germany, Austria or Hungary alone but MIGHT
survive together.

An independent Slovakia was not even in the cards - the region just had
no sufficient national identity. Remember that it took 2 years until the
Czechoslovak army secured the whole of Slovakia, and during that time
Hungarian administration more or less continued "normally".

With Bohemia+Moravia remaining within Austria, Slovakia might perhaps
end as an autonomous region of Poland. But that still requires wind
blowing in just the right direction.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by pyotr filipivich
But I'm not aware of any others which did not involve
a war or two to accomplish. Does anyone else?

Norway-Sweden has been mentioned in the thread.

However, one that has been overlooked is
Macedonia from Serbia. While it might not have
happened without the earlier post-Yugoslavia
wars, it happened after them, and with no
fighting that I know of.

Another was the break-up of the West Indies
Federation; also the secession of Anguilla
from St Kitts-Nevis.

[Don P]

Post by pyotr filipivich
Was pondering the subject of partitioning countries, and the only
ones which I can think of in the last hundred years or so is the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics, and
the devolution of the Soviet Union into the Federated Russian States
and "the rest". . . .
But I'm not aware of any others which did not involve a war or two
to accomplish. Does anyone else?

The separation of Norway from rule by Denmark (1905) was peaceful (by
referendum, after negotiations.) Greenland's autonomy from Danish rule
was voted by referendum in 2008, but the inhabitants seem undecided
about formal national independence.

Denmark used to own several Caribbean islands as colonies, but sold them
to the USA for $25 million in 1917: now the US Virgin Islands.

[Chrysi Cat]

Post by Don P

    Was pondering the subject of partitioning countries, and the only
ones which I can think of in the last hundred years or so is the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech and Slovak Republics, and
the devolution of the Soviet Union into the Federated Russian States
and "the rest". . . .
    But I'm not aware of any others which did not involve a war or two
to accomplish.   Does anyone else?

The separation of Norway from rule by Denmark (1905) was peaceful (by
referendum, after negotiations.)  Greenland's autonomy from Danish rule
was voted by referendum in 2008, but the inhabitants seem undecided
about formal national independence.
Denmark used to own several Caribbean islands as colonies, but sold them
to the USA for $25 million in 1917:  now the US Virgin Islands.

Not sure how much faith I can put in anything you say when you have
Norway gaining her independence from DENMARK in 1905.

As everyone knows, that was from SWEDEN, and had Norway not been given
to the Swedes as Napoleonic Wars spoils, she may never have *wanted* to
be 'freed' from DANISH rule!

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by Don P
Denmark used to own several Caribbean islands as colonies, but sold them
to the USA for $25 million in 1917: now the US Virgin Islands.

Problem - that's the Danes selling their colonies to the US.
They're no more independent now, than they were.

I keep thinking of the Philippines - which were ceded to the US as
"spoils of war" and then granted Independence in 1946. But - that was
a case of an "entity" (the "Philippine Island") remaining intact.
There isn't a "South Philippines" or Free Mindanao - yet - but the
wars drag on.

[ronaloooo]

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI