Africa WW2?

[FMBI]

Link

 

If this really gets going, it could make the Congo look boring. Chad backing the rebels (for obvious reasons), Egypt backing N Sudan, Libya might support N Chad.. And of course you've got Ethiopia and Algeria as wild cards.

 

My guess is that if N Sudan beats the rebels, then nothing will happen (other than a renewed genocide or something fun like that), but if the rebels manage to take over (or continue to threaten) Khartoum, then we'll see quite a war.

[AstroProdigy]

The war between Ethiopia and Eritrea show that old World War 1 style warfare isn't dead yet. Also, the birth rates are high, the weapons aren't too powerful to deter a conflict, and the conflict between Arab and African cultures has only grown stronger and more ingrained. I don't think it can happen, though, with all the foreign intervention that would occur.

[FMBI]

Foreign intervention? The African World War (biggest war since WW2) got zero coverage in the west, Sudan's been a genocidal mess for years now, and all the countries on the Arab-Black line have had continuous problems which have gone unnoticed (except for an occasional complaint about Nigerian militants interfering with the oil supply, of course..)

 

As I said, unless the South Sudanese manage to keep har!@#$%^&*ing the core of the North, then I don't think it'll get much bigger - but if they succeed, then this could explode really fast. And it's interesting you pointed out the Eritrean part - I didn't really think about that, since they don't have much in common with any of the other countries, but I suppose that if Ethiopia intervened, they'd grab an excuse to take back the territory they lost after the last war.

[AstroProdigy]

Southern Sudan is looking for independence in a referendum in 2011 that will surely pass I think if this whole thing blows up to several countries at once, especially with Egypt, a strategically important country involved there will be a response. Eritrea could ally with Arab states out of convenience. I'd like to see the battle just because it might start resolving all the random borders in Africa. Edited May 12, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[darkhosis]

africa is always at war with itself, or having famines, or having coups, or having various voter irregularities, or having the white man invent AIDS. it just all grew too tiresome some time back

[AstroProdigy]

Well considering you don't have to actually live through it in a never ending cycle I'm sure it's easy for you to get bored with it from the comfort of your lazy boy recliner.

[darkhosis]

Well considering you don't have to actually live through it in a never ending cycle I'm sure it's easy for you to get bored with it from the comfort of your lazy boy recliner.

makes sense to me. in the meantime, keep sending the food there to contribute to more world starvation at a later date. until these african countries get competant govts, its spending money for nothing

[Bak]

lol @ Eritrea backing arabs

[Drake7707]

i say let them be, as long as they don't annoy us

[Aileron]

I say pick whichever side we disagree with the least and help them win. Then, if we find the winners unacceptable, stab them in the back and replace them.

 

We also need to get smart with aid. A lot of these regimes simply don't want their cons!@#$%^&*uency to get a decent amount of food, as when they do they become a threat. True aid in a situation like that involves more elements of removing the oppressors than by feeding the hungry.

[AstroProdigy]

I say the order in Africa has been set up by the West. We set up the borders to promote merging groups that shouldn't be together while cutting through plenty of ethnic groups. This can only promote endless ethnic conflict. Until we at least adjust the borders to a more logical level (not giving each ethnic group a state because that would create an impossibly large number of African, landlocked states).

 

We do need to get smart with aid, but in a different way than Aileron suggests first and foremost. Instead of delivering western made food that their markets can't compete with and thus making their most important industry obsolete and putting their farmers out of business and into starvation like we are doing and we already did to the Caribbean we should buy food from African nations to feed other African nations thus helping the countries in crisis and aiding the development of the countries that are managing better in the process. The way we give aid now only promotes the problem and until we figure that out and change out policies accordingly we will only do more harm than good in the long term.

 

Also, in a stroke of dramatic irony that gets me to agree with Aileron at least in part, a few states in Africa just shouldn't exist and there's no reason to keep them the way they are. Also, I'd like to see those ethnic groups that are divided between 2 or 3 states to be joined together to at least join with one of those states.

[ThunderJam]

Until we at least adjust the borders to a more logical level (not giving each ethnic group a state because that would create an impossibly large number of African, landlocked states).

 

a few states in Africa just shouldn't exist and there's no reason to keep them the way they are. Also, I'd like to see those ethnic groups that are divided between 2 or 3 states to be joined together to at least join with one of those states.

 

I can't help but think, aren't you a person who has also blasted our having involvement in middle east, saying we don't really have any right to deal with their business...

[Aceflyer]

I say the order in Africa has been set up by the West. We set up the borders to promote merging groups that shouldn't be together while cutting through plenty of ethnic groups. This can only promote endless ethnic conflict. Until we at least adjust the borders to a more logical level (not giving each ethnic group a state because that would create an impossibly large number of African, landlocked states).

 

Wait, the order in Africa was set up by the West? We set borders to encourage ethnic strife? Evidence please.

 

...a few states in Africa just shouldn't exist and there's no reason to keep them the way they are. Also, I'd like to see those ethnic groups that are divided between 2 or 3 states to be joined together to at least join with one of those states.

 

Okay, so you want the West, whom you accuse of causing the problems in the first place, to go back in and meddle more and forcibly dissolve a few countries and create some new countries?

[FMBI]

Not to be rude here, but while the borders weren't specifically set up to provoke conflict, it has been widely recognized for the last 50 years that the colonial powers really !@#$%^&*ed it up when they left. It was mostly a haphazard thing - for every Tanzania, you had a DRC or a Sudan. Basically the only African regions that got off safe were the ones which already had an established structure for long periods prior to colonisation - the ones which were just collections of tribes didn't have a chance.

 

Also, although, especially in light of Iraq and the lessened power projection capability of Europe, the West is moving towards a more hands-off approach, it is arguable that in some cases it would be worth it to either completely split highly unstable countries up, or else station peacekeepers with actual support so they can help the locals negotiate and hold down outbreaks of violence. The danger here, of course, is that some genius who wants to gain political support will start another Kosovo and take control of the area away from people who have held it for centuries. One of the many reasons ethnic conflicts are so !@#$%^&* hard to stop.

Edited May 15, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[AstroProdigy]

I do admit that the west would probably only mess it all up, but a country like Sudan really should disappear. If you think Saddam's g!@#$%^&*ing of the Kurds was bad millions of people in Sudan have been killed. The reason Africa is different from the Middle East is there are many states in the Middle East that weren't set up by the west. When we talk about attacking Iran it's because of our own selfish interests. When people talk about attacking Sudan it's because millions have been killed and millions more will probably be killed in the future at this rate. I guess this only refers to Sudan. Also when I said I'd like those ethnic groups who were divided between countries to be joined back together I never said the west should do it. I also only said "I'd like to see" it. I know you want to attack my positions here because you're mad about what I'm saying on the other thread, but leave it there unless you can separate the two.

 

Wait' date=' the order in Africa was set up by the West? We set borders to encourage ethnic strife? Evidence please.[/quote']

Oh come on you have to be kidding me. The borders were almost entirely (with only a few adjustments) set up by colonialism. Divide and rule strategies were in every play book of every colonial power. If you can't accept this and want evidence because you don't like me then you have some serious problems.

 

Also' date=' although, especially in light of Iraq and the lessened power projection capability of Europe, the West is moving towards a more hands-off approach, it is arguable that in some cases it would be worth it to either completely split highly unstable countries up, or else station peacekeepers with actual support so they can help the locals negotiate and hold down outbreaks of violence. The danger here, of course, is that some genius who wants to gain political support will start another Kosovo and take control of the area away from people who have held it for centuries. One of the many reasons ethnic conflicts are so !@#$%^&* hard to stop.[/quote']

I do agree we need to worry about that, but Sudan was set up by the British, putting unrelated groups together. the mostly Nubian Arabs in Khartoum didn't hold either southern Sudan or Darfur for centuries. There's no historical legacy binding them together beyond British colonialism and even then they were only combined together by force and by false promises by the government in Khartoum that if the parts of Sudan that have no place being in the country stayed with the country after independence they would have a say in the way they're run.

Edited May 16, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[Aceflyer]

Oh come on you have to be kidding me. The borders were almost entirely (with only a few adjustments) set up by colonialism. Divide and rule strategies were in every play book of every colonial power. If you can't accept this and want evidence because you don't like me then you have some serious problems.

 

The borders were set by the African countries themselves after they achieved independence from the former colonial powers. Now granted the borders were very likely influenced by the colonial powers' past activity, but the West hardly actually set the borders. Also note that many of the borders have changed - some quite drastically - because of local warfare after they were originally set at independence.

 

This has nothing to do with me liking you or not; you made a claim and you need to provide evidence, not speculation.

[AstroProdigy]

The borders were set up by the west and when African countries gained independence, they did so with those exact borders. Many borders have changed, some quite drastically? I can only think of a few non colonially based border changes. Morocco comes to mind and possibly borders between former French colonies where the borders were never drawn. Otherwise it's almost exactly the same. Even when Eritrea achieved independence it was with the borders set by Italy that was justified with a small period of independence from Italy with those borders.

 

There have been numerous ethnic and religious independence movements after colonialism and none have succeeded because that would create nation states that are much harder to take advantage of and exploit by the west.

 

Africa under colonialism

Africa today

 

You seem to not be in your element with this subject since you have no idea about the borders of African countries so may I suggest some research before you come here to debate commonly known problems just because you don't like me because I keep bashing Hillary in another thread.

Edited May 16, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[ThunderJam]

By "The west" who specifically are you referring to. Because as far as colonization goes, it was mainly Europe that was involved in Africa, not the US. I know Europe is considered the West as compared to Asia, just sounds weird when comparing to Africa because Africa is as far West as Europe is.

[AstroProdigy]

By the West I mean Western Europe. The United States only started playing a major role in more recent times.

[Aceflyer]

The borders were set up by the west and when African countries gained independence, they did so with those exact borders. Many borders have changed, some quite drastically? I can only think of a few non colonially based border changes. Morocco comes to mind and possibly borders between former French colonies where the borders were never drawn. Otherwise it's almost exactly the same. Even when Eritrea achieved independence it was with the borders set by Italy that was justified with a small period of independence from Italy with those borders.

 

There have been numerous ethnic and religious independence movements after colonialism and none have succeeded because that would create nation states that are much harder to take advantage of and exploit by the west.

 

Africa under colonialism

Africa today

 

With the figures you've provided above, it does look like many borders have shifted, some significantly. It only looks similar if you look at it very, very crudely.

 

You seem to not be in your element with this subject since you have no idea about the borders of African countries so may I suggest some research before you come here to debate commonly known problems just because you don't like me because I keep bashing Hillary in another thread.

 

Quit trying to take this off topic. To be frank until your post above I didn't even remember you bashing Clinton in another thread.

[FMBI]

Speaking as someone who's addicted to geography, the African borders have not significantly changed since independence. Astro's right.

 

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/willow/history-of-africa3.gif

 

Some changes:

 

French Somaliland is Djibouti - the others are unified into Somalia

Libya got a small slice of various French colonies

Rwanda and Burundi independent

Chad now exists

 

Other than that, as Astro said, they basically haven't changed at all. The French colonies were just split up into borders that hadn't existed before. In no case since have borders significantly changed due to either war or diplomacy. The closest that it's come to that was when South Africa dominated (and to some extent, still does) Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, and Zambia (and of course Lesotho and Swaziland), or when Rwanda, Uganda, Namibia, Zimbabwe, and Angola were looting the Congo in the Africa World War. If you can offer an example of where borders changed by more than a couple miles (or were merely reorganized, as in the case of Sudan, Cameroon, or Egypt) then I'll be glad to hear it.

 

On the other hand, Astro,stop being an !@#$%^&*.

[Aceflyer]

I'm happy to do a detailed analysis.

 

Ifni and Spanish Morocco have been absorbed into modern Morocco.

French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa have split into modern Mauritania, Senegal, Mali, Niger, Chad, the Central African Republic, the Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Benin, and Cote D'Ivoire.

Sizable chunks of Kamerun have been absorbed into modern Chad, Gabon, the Central African Republic, and the Republic of the Congo.

Sizable chunks of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, Algeria, and even, to an extent, French West Africa have been absorbed into modern Libya.

A portion of Libya has been absorbed into modern Egypt.

British Somaliland has been absorbed into modern Somalia.

Walvis Bay has been absorbed into modern Namibia.

German East Africa has split into modern Tanzania, Burundi, and Rwanda.

 

 

That's a lot of border drawing and reorganization that happened after the time of colonialism.

[FMBI]

At the time of colonialism's end*

 

As I said, significant redrawing after independence (in other words, with no western intervention).

 

Ifni and Spanish Morocco have been absorbed into modern Morocco.

French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa have split into modern Mauritania, Senegal, Mali, Niger, Chad, the Central African Republic, the Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Benin, and Cote D'Ivoire.

Sizable chunks of Kamerun have been absorbed into modern Chad, Gabon, the Central African Republic, and the Republic of the Congo.

Sizable chunks of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, Algeria, and even, to an extent, French West Africa have been absorbed into modern Libya.

A portion of Libya has been absorbed into modern Egypt.

British Somaliland has been absorbed into modern Somalia.

Walvis Bay has been absorbed into modern Namibia.

German East Africa has split into modern Tanzania, Burundi, and Rwanda.

And FYI : Spanish Morocco is still pretty much independent. The Morrocans have themselves a little riot every once in a while over it. In the case of Ifni, the Spanish returned the enclave.

French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa, as both I and Astro mentioned, were not clearly marked in the first place, France set up the borders.

I wouldn't call them "sizable" chunks of Cameroon, although I already mentioned that the change happened.

I also mentioned Libya, which gained from various territories, but Sudan also gained from the other French territories - it was basically a matter of even more random redrawing to make it geometrically appealing.

Libya did lose some territory to Egypt but it was not really that big of a loss, all of Libya outside of the coastal strip is virtually worthless.

Didn't I mention Somalia? Sheesh.

Walvis Bay was under South Africa's control, because South Africa virtually annexed South West Africa. That's a little like Russia ceding Alaska to the United States on a much smaller scale.

And I also mentioned German East Africa.

 

Almost all of these had at least great power influence in the background, and most were a direct result of the colonialist's decisions, such as the French colonies. You aren't really proving that the independent nations did much on their own. ^.-

[Aceflyer]

And FYI : Spanish Morocco is still pretty much independent. The Morrocans have themselves a little riot every once in a while over it. In the case of Ifni, the Spanish returned the enclave.

 

Riots or not it's still a significant border change.

 

French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa, as both I and Astro mentioned, were not clearly marked in the first place, France set up the borders.

 

Yep, which is why I lumped them together as one pseudo-en!@#$%^&*y in my previous post. Still, it's significant that they went from one pseudo-en!@#$%^&*y to 12 autonomous nations.

 

I wouldn't call them "sizable" chunks of Cameroon, although I already mentioned that the change happened.

 

Whether it's "sizable" or not is perhaps arguable, but it's still a significant border change, as we both agree.

 

I also mentioned Libya, which gained from various territories, but Sudan also gained from the other French territories - it was basically a matter of even more random redrawing to make it geometrically appealing.

 

The maps you provided don't seem to show Sudan gaining from the other French territories, or at least not enough to make up for its loss to Libya.

 

Libya did lose some territory to Egypt but it was not really that big of a loss, all of Libya outside of the coastal strip is virtually worthless.

 

Worthless or not it's still a significant border change.

 

Didn't I mention Somalia? Sheesh.

 

Okay so we both agree regarding this, which is good.

 

Walvis Bay was under South Africa's control, because South Africa virtually annexed South West Africa. That's a little like Russia ceding Alaska to the United States on a much smaller scale.

 

It's still a significant border change.

 

And I also mentioned German East Africa.

 

Good, again we agree.

 

Almost all of these had at least great power influence in the background, and most were a direct result of the colonialist's decisions, such as the French colonies. You aren't really proving that the independent nations did much on their own. ^.-

 

So we appear to be in agreement then, in the end.

 

...the borders were very likely influenced by the colonial powers' past activity...

[darkhosis]

any comments on how rhodesia and south africa have went to !@#$%^&* since transition from white control to "democracy" (cough wheeze)

 

the Breadbasket of Africa.. omgz