Africa WW2?

[AstroProdigy]

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...

Coming from another geography nut, Aceflyer you prove yourself to have no real knowledge of Africa as I hoped you would.

 

Spanish Morocco was annexed by Morocco under the same arbitrary borders that Spanish Morocco existed under in the first place. On top of that if you had any idea what

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...

Coming from another geography nut, Aceflyer you prove yourself to have no real knowledge of Africa as I hoped you would.

 

Spanish Morocco was annexed by Morocco under the same arbitrary borders that Spanish Morocco existed under in the first place. On top of that if you had any idea what the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic was you wouldn't be bringing this up because that state is recognized as a country by forty three states under the same borders as Spanish Sahara.

 

It's really not significant that French colonies split apart considering they're easier to deal with as smaller divided, but still randomly divided nations. Also, the borders of those nations were also set up by the French after WW2 as part of the gradual decolonization movement in French controlled Sub Saharan Africa. Again you are wrong and your inability to see the difference between the borders of Africa before World War 1 and later on. The borders did change during the colonial period as the colonial powers saw fit, but almost never after. Even the few changes after were still on the basis of old colonial borders of some sort such as Eritrean independence based on the arbitrary borders drawn by Italy or the joining of two parts of Somali inhabited lands that was based only on the old colonial borders of Italian Somali and British Somaliland.

 

You seem to be unaware of who controlled Cameroon and why the changes in borders happened. Cameroon was a German colony and when Germany was defeated in WW1 Cameroon had chunks taken off of it to be added to France. A map of the changes of Cameroon's borders would show you this so here. As you can see the boundaries were changed entirely by France and Britain. Just so I don't trip you up again on Cameroon since you've already shown your lack of knowledge on the subject, the changes that occurred after the initial chunks were taken off by France after WW1 were that the parts of Cameroon controlled by the British were given a choice; either join with Britain's Nigerian colony or stay with Cameroon. The difference between the British and French parts of Cameroon were and are entirely based on who was the colonial power and what language does each respective former colonial power speak.

 

The same goes with Rwanda and Burundi, which were part of German East Africa and were added to Belgium's colony in the Congo only to be carved out again with the same borders that they always had; colonially drawn borders.

 

The changes in borders between Libya and French and British colonies were made entirely by colonial powers. The only border change that Libya attempted as an independent country was a piece of worthless desert called the Aouzou Strip that was merely a propaganda tool. Even that didn't take.

 

Somalia is the joining together of 2 former colonies, one British and one Italian, but even that is under the strict borders set up by the colonists. The country in no way represents the joining of all Somalis into one state, which you obviously had no idea about or else you wouldn't argue this point. You also don't know that the British part of Somalia is now de facto independent as the country of Somaliland (the British colony was called British Somaliland) in all the chaos and searching for international recognition to that independence (based on a few days of independence before joining Somalia under British borders).

 

Walvis Bay isn't a significant change. It's a small hunk of land that was joined to Namibia after Germany's loss in WW1 as part of the new South African held colony called South West Africa. Keep in mind South Africa was controlled by white colonists and what is now called Namibia was seen as a colony to the government in South Africa so this is once again a colonial move.

 

Sudan actually didn't gain from French colonies. The borders essentially remained the same.

 

Therefore, there actually have been no significant border adjustments if Africa that weren't made before independence or aren't based on other colonial borders such as with the borders of Eritrea, Western Sahara, and Somaliland. The reason for this is that even today in the international system, dominated by the West with regards to Africa, will not allow any wrongs to correct themselves in Africa. The result is extremely bloody wars that don't even accomplish independence such as with Biafra or Southern Sudan. Even in Southern Sudan, the only case that has a chance of changing in the bloody cycle of Africa since it has a choice in 2011 to vote on independence or staying with Sudan would only be changing the borders within Sudan, without touching the arbitrary borders between Southern Sudan and surrounding countries and with the groups in Southern Sudan being arbitrarily put together, with the only difference between them and the government in Khartoum is they're non Muslim and non Arab. Even with that this !@#$%^&*umes the referendum will go as planned and the results will be respected, which I find hard to believe with the government in Khartoum.

 

Sorry to be a jerk, but I actually baited you on purpose by putting a map of Africa that was pre WW1 to prove that you actually have no idea what you're talking about with regards to Africa. All you've done is pick at the map without knowing the history or why changes took place from the pre WW1 map to now. I frankly was not interested in debating you on this since you were clearly wrong, had no idea what you were talking about, and would simply drag on the debate forever and refuse to admit you're wrong. I suggest to you 2 options. Your first option is to take an African history class or learn African history and geography in some other way. Your second option is to not post on this thread with your claim that Africa's borders were not set up by the west because I'm only going to keep making you look foolish, which you already do. Also, don't ask me for proof or sources of the things I said in this post as it's all facts and if you're too lazy to look it up yourself I'm not going to waste my time doing it for you.

 

You can try to challenge any of the points I've made, but only if it involves you going and doing the research on it first so you aren't just wasting my time. This post alone took me almost an hour and a half in reading the other posts made and looking up everything to make sure I'm not wrong. I really don't feel like doing this over and over if you have nothing well thought out to bring to the table. In fact I'll give you a clue. There is one whole in my argument that although I can argue is inconsequential to the argument as only one example you can still bring it up. If you put in some research into Africa you may just find it. <_<

Edited May 17, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[Aceflyer]

Sorry to be a jerk, but I actually baited you on purpose by putting a map of Africa that was pre WW1 to prove that you actually have no idea what you're talking about with regards to Africa. All you've done is pick at the map without knowing the history or why changes took place from the pre WW1 map to now. I frankly was not interested in debating you on this since you were clearly wrong, had no idea what you were talking about, and would simply drag on the debate forever and refuse to admit you're wrong. I suggest to you 2 options. Your first option is to take an African history class or learn African history and geography in some other way. Your second option is to not post on this thread with your claim that Africa's borders were not set up by the west because I'm only going to keep making you look foolish, which you already do. Also, don't ask me for proof or sources of the things I said in this post as it's all facts and if you're too lazy to look it up yourself I'm not going to waste my time doing it for you.

 

ROFL. I !@#$%^&*umed that your evidence was correct (since you are, supposedly, someone knowledgeable in the subject) and went straight to analyzing what evidence you provided. I never claimed to be an expert on African geopolitics, and it was reasonable that I asked you to provide proof. It was, OTOH, not reasonable that you purposely provided fake evidence.

[»Lynx]

Wow, talk about back of the net. Hahahaha

[ThunderJam]

What was the original topic of this thread again? =P

 

Btw asto that was possibly the longest post Ive ever seen (not counting the quotes part). I think maybe ive seen ail do one as long lol.

[AstroProdigy]

Honestly, I'm used to you debating me without knowing much of anything of what you're actually debating. You extend the debate endlessly because that's the nature of debates because you don't want to admit you can be wrong and I knew you'd do exactly the same thing here even though you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You made the claim that the West didn't set up the borders of Africa. Rather than endlessly debate you on yet another thread and accomplish nothing I tricked you into flat out proving you're just pushing your own opinions without knowing the facts. I think it's a reasonable move, if mean. Edited May 19, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[»Lynx]

[Aceflyer]

Honestly, I'm used to you debating me without knowing much of anything of what you're actually debating. You extend the debate endlessly because that's the nature of debates because you don't want to admit you can be wrong and I knew you'd do exactly the same thing here even though you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You made the claim that the West didn't set up the borders of Africa. Rather than endlessly debate you on yet another thread and accomplish nothing I tricked you into flat out proving you're just pushing your own opinions without knowing the facts. I think it's a reasonable move, if mean.

 

Quit taking this off-topic. Quit flaming me.

 

I made no claim. I asked you to prove your claim, and you responded with fake evidence. Not my problem.

[»Lynx]

Nobody flamed you, you just feel like you've been flamed because you've just been made to look like a fool, and it's your own fault that has happened, however, I think from now we can continue to stay on topic as we've successfully resolved all the differences...

[AstroProdigy]

Quit taking this off-topic. Quit flaming me.

 

I made no claim. I asked you to prove your claim, and you responded with fake evidence. Not my problem.

I was making a well known claim that's been well proven. You wanted to argue anything I said. I proved you don't even know what you're talking about so there you go. Anyone who has a decent knowledge of Africa and thus can debate intelligently would have known the map was outdated instead of picking all the pieces as if simply looking at the map will give you all the information you need.

[darkhosis]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?...jectid=10509966

[AstroProdigy]

I see a serious conflict of interest for the US here. While we ally with Ethiopia in the "war on terror" we're also allied with Egypt so a war with them on opposite sides would be a serious problem for us. Should we support an old ally that we can't afford to lose or a promising new one that could serve our interests in a way that only a Christian dominated, landlocked country surrounded by Muslim and/or hostile countries can?

[Aileron]

Well, I'd go with Ethiopia. They are single minded.

 

Egypt is sort of torn, kind of like Saudi Arabia only less extreme. They have ties with the west, but they also have a large contingent of Muslim Brotherhood members, which as I've said before is the base of supply and funding for virtually every Sunni terrorist group in the world.

 

Every time I see talk about possible peace between Israel and Palestine, I think 'why bother?'. Peace there just isn't going to happen.

 

 

Here however I think peace is entirely possible.

 

 

BTW, ThunderJam, you've confused me with someone else. The 'hands off the Middle East' philosophy is what everyone else here subscribes too. My mindset is that we should start in Turkey and march east until we reach India.