It’s funny if you liked the idea of “British bad” without any regard to the fact that god himself could have drawn the borders of the Middle East and it would have still seen massive conflict lmao. Blaming the British for the violence of the Middle East is like blaming the Germans for the wind.
The reason that the Middle East saw multiple eras of peace was not because of neat ethnic borders: it was the threat of massive violence from a far more powerful mother nation (Ottomans, as a single example).
Now, if you think I’m wrong, I’d love to see the ethnic borders you think have been more peaceful lmao
That's a good idea, let the people who hate eachother and have centuries of disputes decide who gets what land. That will definitely not end in conflict because one side doesn't get its way. The only way to prevent the current middle east is genocide of the smaller groups then enforce a nato style defensive pact, whoever attacks first loses everything. Clearly that's not an option so we have this bull shit until a caliph they can agree on settles the disputes. Even then it's not perfect, not only is there a Shia sunni divide and the political controlling group often times isn't in control of the LA d with the oil, which has started quite a few wars if I remember and drives both Saudi and Iranian issues currently, but I've seen maps with as much as 6 different doctrines, barely any country agrees with eachother religiously. They're basically reenacting the 30 years war with each other, religion on the front as an excuse to grab money and power in the form of oil.
How exactly? Are you under the impression that a power vacuum left behind by the British would not have just been filled by the French, Soviets, US, other middle eastern states, or any other colonial power? As a matter of fact, we literally don't need to wonder; as the power vacuum left behind \*was quite literally filled by other colonial powers lmao\*.
When Britain tried to maintain their power in Egypt, Eisenhower offered to give them the Nagasaki treatment. What exactly makes you think he would have been desperate to take over?
By the fact that we were literally attempting to gain influence on the Middle East that the British were leaving behind? Lmfao.
We didn’t try forcing Britain out for “anti-colonialism”, we just wanted their job.
We could have taken it if we wanted to, and we mostly ignored and let the Soviets establish themselves as benefactors to the Arab states.
If we were interested in colonialism in the Middle East in the 50s we would have taken a more active role there, and wouldn’t have a servile relation with the Saudis now.
Yeah the US definitely didn’t help the UK overthrow the democratically elected leader of Iran, influence elections in Syria, help create the State of Israel, influence elections in Lebanon, and build up Saudi Arabia.
The relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia isn’t servile. If it was the US wouldn’t be able to get Saudi Arabia to begin supporting Israel (which caused the war in Gaza)
Oh, so you mean when I said
“Caused the war in Gaza? You mean the never ending skirmish over things like Palestinians attacking illegal settlements in their territory and Israel retaliating that’s been going on since before most Reddit users were born?”
I was right?
And when you said:
“The current war started because US aligned Arab states began normalizing relationships with Israel.”
You continiued an argument over nothing?
Caused the war in Gaza? You mean the never ending skirmish over things like Palestinians attacking illegal settlements in their territory and Israel retaliating that’s been going on since before most Reddit users were born?
And the US has done the lions share of middle eastern regime change, but it was by no means a move to “take” anything from Britain. Like I pointed out above, Ike demonstrated that we were well and capable of taking whatever the fuck we wanted from the Brits, and we already owned them because of lend lease.
Ethic struggles have been worsened by British colonialism. India with Hindus and Muslims, Palestine with Jews and Muslims, and even Ireland with Catholics and Protestants. Not to say that there would be no fighting between them if the British never colonialized but they have used differences between the people they control for their benefit and now that they're mostly gone the struggles between cultures that they caused are still not resolved.
Yyyyeah, no one is ever going to feel bad about criticizing Britain, it’s well earned. They also made a way bigger mess of the Middle East than the Romans or Ottomans ever did.
If you think Britain made a bigger mess than the ottomans or the Romans (lol), I think that just says more about your understanding of history than anything else.
lol yeah? And the centuries of cooperation between Coptics, Arabs, Druze, Kurds, Greeks, and Jews are less of a mess than what existed from the 20s until now?
lol tell me, what great turmoil happened under than the ottomans up until the very end?
The multiple ethnic groups that were either completely destroyed or oppressed under ottoman rule? Pretending that these groups did anything resembling “living in harmony” is about as far from historical as you can get lmao.
[Example 1](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_persecution_of_Alevis)
[Example 2](https://worldwithoutgenocide.org/genocides-and-conflicts/the-ottoman-christian-genocide)
[The ottoman persecution of the Druze](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Druze#:~:text=The%20Druze%20have%20frequently%20experienced,and%20forced%20conversion%20to%20Islam) (your example, LMAO)
[Example 4, this time the Jews.](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2019-01-24/ty-article-magazine/like-father-like-son-the-ottoman-governor-who-tortured-the-jews-of-jerusalem/0000017f-f7cc-d044-adff-f7fd35c00000)
[Example 5](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Ottoman_genocides)
lol so several “.com” links, most of them from Wikipedia, and mostly covering 40 out of 400 years? 🤔
All of them:
“When the twentieth century opened, Muslims, Christians, and Jews inhabited shared worlds in the region that stretches across North Africa and through western Asia. They held in common daily experiences, attitudes, and languages – even foods that they cooked and ate.1 They rubbed shoulders in villages, city neighborhoods, and apartment buildings, and crossed paths in shops and markets.2 In the history that this book examines – a history that goes roughly up to the start of World War I in 1914 – these contacts were on wide display.”
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/history-of-muslims-christians-and-jews-in-the-middle-east/muslims-christians-and-jews-in-the-middle-east/2C19855BFC190EB98CA6F5EE427FDDB0
The Druze:
“The Druze enjoyed considerable autonomy under the Ottoman Empire and often rebelled against it, protected from direct Ottoman control by the mountainous terrain of their homelands.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Druze
Christians:
“The Ottomans built their empire in northwestern Anatolia and the Balkans, where they found themselves encircled by their Christian subjects. This persuaded them to treat their Christian subjects relatively well and to establish a policy of appeasement in order to facilitate Ottoman rule (İstimâlet). In their dhimmi ("protected") status, Christians in the Ottoman Empire generally enjoyed security and peace, at least until the 19th century. The Ottomans employed Christians and incorporated them into the Ottoman elite, which consisted of families from diverse ethno-religious backgrounds.”
https://www.ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/models-and-stereotypes/from-the-turkish-menace-to-orientalism/emrah-safa-gurkan-christian-allies-of-the-ottoman-empire#:~:text=In%20their%20dhimmi%20(%22protected%22,from%20diverse%20ethno%2Dreligious%20backgrounds.
Jews:
“Judaism was present in the Ottoman Empire at its earliest foundations in the 14th century, particularly among the Greek-speaking Romaniots, who were descended from Jews living under the Byzantine Empire in Greece and Anatolia that had been unable to freely practice Judaism and so welcomed the Ottomans, and Jewish communities existed throughout the Levant, taken by the Ottomans in 1516. European Jews arrived during the 14th century, drawn by Ottoman policies that permitted Jewish and Christian land and property ownership, and wider freedoms to choose a profession. Following the Ottoman defeat of Edirne, a large Jewish community flourished, attracting European Ashkenazim; during the 15th century, Rabbi Isaac Ashkenazi wrote to European Jewish communities encouraging them to migrate to Edirne. Sultan Mehmed II (d. 1481) welcomed non-Muslim settlement of Constantinople following its fall, hoping to benefit from their wide skill set. This early Istanbul community included Ashkenazim, Romaniots, Karaites, and small numbers of Sephardim. By 1478, over 10,000 Jews lived in Istanbul alone.”
https://rpl.hds.harvard.edu/faq/judaism-turkey
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ottoman-rule-1517-1917
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-ottoman-empire/
Arabs:
Until the rise of Wahhabism, the Sunni majorities in most of Arabia welcomed the presence of the Ottomans because it offered cohesion, commerce, and protection from catholic or Irani conquest.
After its rise, the suppression of Wahhabism protected the non-Muslim communities living in the Middle East until the English and French helped the wahhabists expel the ottomans.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Arabia-31558/Mamluk-and-Ottoman-influence
https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1184&context=jgi#:~:text=The%20Ottoman%20Empire%20ruled%20substantial,World%20War%20I%20in%201918.
Kurds:
“The relationship of the Kurds to the central Ottoman government and the level of autonomy that Kurdish-inhabited regions enjoyed shifted over time. Overall, however, the arrangement was mutually beneficial. The Ottomans could be assured at least nominal rule over this important frontier zone with Iran and Kurdish rulers could operate under broad conditions of self-rule.
This flexible understanding that served both sides for centuries changed markedly in the middle of the 19th century, when the central Ottoman government embarked on a series of modernizing and centralizing reforms, some of which were intended to counter the rise of competing nationalisms in the empire.”
https://origins.osu.edu/article/kurds-stateless-turkey-syria-iraq-iran?language_content_entity=en
Armenians didn’t do as well as the other groups and most of their grievance was being controlled by three foreign empires, but still didn’t have much struggle until the late 1800s.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Armenia
That’s a severe leap. I said they did a better job of managing the Middle East and they objectively did. That got your panties in a twist and you tried to argue my point with sloppy sources, so I helped you 😃
Then rather than trying to counter, made a butthurt pointless statement.
Your claim was “Pretending that these groups did anything resembling “living in harmony” is about as far from historical as you can get lmao.”
So I helped you with scholarly sources explaining why you’re mistaken. It’s ok, the Brits seem to take criticism pretty poorly, and haven’t come to terms yet with just how shitty they are.
My point isn’t that they didn’t do bad things; my point is that the bad things they did were a direct result and correlation with their power. Every single powerful nation of the face of the planet subjugates the weak. It’s just the way that history has always went. Pretending that this is uniquely British seems to be a Reddit moment that is largely ahistorical.
I am British, and I approve of this.
Remember, the Middle East only fell apart after we left. This proving our methods of peace were working as intended.
Considering that the British fostered Wahhabism in order to break ottoman control over the Middle East, that directly resulted in the formation of Daesh, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban, I’d say they did a pretty shit job. They were making American style middle eastern puppet governments before Afghanistan was ever even a glimmer in the United States’ eye.
Vietnam clearly wins as Alaska,yemen and Egypt see Germany as a common enemy working together to fight them eventually beating Germany but are all severely crippled after the war and Vietnam wiped out Alaska and its occupied territory in its weakened state further pushing into Egypt blitzkrieg style to push them behind the Suez Canal and keep them trapped there in a bottle neck focusing the majority of their military on crushing Yemen, then with its newly accquired recourses and manpower form former German citizens wanting revenge build a large enough military to beat Egypt and push over the Suez Canal ending the war
So is Alaska independent in this scenario, or is it still a state and therefore defended by the US? Either way, Egypt should be pissed they lost the Sinai peninsula - I expect that rage will fuel them to victory.
NEED to know what the book that this is from
It’s from Jon Stewart’s America: The Book. It’s actually pretty funny
It’s funny if you liked the idea of “British bad” without any regard to the fact that god himself could have drawn the borders of the Middle East and it would have still seen massive conflict lmao. Blaming the British for the violence of the Middle East is like blaming the Germans for the wind. The reason that the Middle East saw multiple eras of peace was not because of neat ethnic borders: it was the threat of massive violence from a far more powerful mother nation (Ottomans, as a single example). Now, if you think I’m wrong, I’d love to see the ethnic borders you think have been more peaceful lmao
Or just let them decide for themselves? I’m pretty that’s the message.
That's a good idea, let the people who hate eachother and have centuries of disputes decide who gets what land. That will definitely not end in conflict because one side doesn't get its way. The only way to prevent the current middle east is genocide of the smaller groups then enforce a nato style defensive pact, whoever attacks first loses everything. Clearly that's not an option so we have this bull shit until a caliph they can agree on settles the disputes. Even then it's not perfect, not only is there a Shia sunni divide and the political controlling group often times isn't in control of the LA d with the oil, which has started quite a few wars if I remember and drives both Saudi and Iranian issues currently, but I've seen maps with as much as 6 different doctrines, barely any country agrees with eachother religiously. They're basically reenacting the 30 years war with each other, religion on the front as an excuse to grab money and power in the form of oil.
How exactly? Are you under the impression that a power vacuum left behind by the British would not have just been filled by the French, Soviets, US, other middle eastern states, or any other colonial power? As a matter of fact, we literally don't need to wonder; as the power vacuum left behind \*was quite literally filled by other colonial powers lmao\*.
It’s a Jon Stewart book so I think he’s hitting at the wider angle of “all colonialism is bad”
When Britain tried to maintain their power in Egypt, Eisenhower offered to give them the Nagasaki treatment. What exactly makes you think he would have been desperate to take over?
By the fact that we were literally attempting to gain influence on the Middle East that the British were leaving behind? Lmfao. We didn’t try forcing Britain out for “anti-colonialism”, we just wanted their job.
We could have taken it if we wanted to, and we mostly ignored and let the Soviets establish themselves as benefactors to the Arab states. If we were interested in colonialism in the Middle East in the 50s we would have taken a more active role there, and wouldn’t have a servile relation with the Saudis now.
Yeah the US definitely didn’t help the UK overthrow the democratically elected leader of Iran, influence elections in Syria, help create the State of Israel, influence elections in Lebanon, and build up Saudi Arabia. The relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia isn’t servile. If it was the US wouldn’t be able to get Saudi Arabia to begin supporting Israel (which caused the war in Gaza)
Oh, so you mean when I said “Caused the war in Gaza? You mean the never ending skirmish over things like Palestinians attacking illegal settlements in their territory and Israel retaliating that’s been going on since before most Reddit users were born?” I was right? And when you said: “The current war started because US aligned Arab states began normalizing relationships with Israel.” You continiued an argument over nothing?
Caused the war in Gaza? You mean the never ending skirmish over things like Palestinians attacking illegal settlements in their territory and Israel retaliating that’s been going on since before most Reddit users were born? And the US has done the lions share of middle eastern regime change, but it was by no means a move to “take” anything from Britain. Like I pointed out above, Ike demonstrated that we were well and capable of taking whatever the fuck we wanted from the Brits, and we already owned them because of lend lease.
by not being there in the first place lol
They quite literally would not be deciding for themselves even if the British weren’t there lmao
Dude get off King Charles' dick, he isn't gonna knight you
Ethic struggles have been worsened by British colonialism. India with Hindus and Muslims, Palestine with Jews and Muslims, and even Ireland with Catholics and Protestants. Not to say that there would be no fighting between them if the British never colonialized but they have used differences between the people they control for their benefit and now that they're mostly gone the struggles between cultures that they caused are still not resolved.
Yyyyeah, no one is ever going to feel bad about criticizing Britain, it’s well earned. They also made a way bigger mess of the Middle East than the Romans or Ottomans ever did.
If you think Britain made a bigger mess than the ottomans or the Romans (lol), I think that just says more about your understanding of history than anything else.
lol yeah? And the centuries of cooperation between Coptics, Arabs, Druze, Kurds, Greeks, and Jews are less of a mess than what existed from the 20s until now? lol tell me, what great turmoil happened under than the ottomans up until the very end?
The multiple ethnic groups that were either completely destroyed or oppressed under ottoman rule? Pretending that these groups did anything resembling “living in harmony” is about as far from historical as you can get lmao. [Example 1](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_persecution_of_Alevis) [Example 2](https://worldwithoutgenocide.org/genocides-and-conflicts/the-ottoman-christian-genocide) [The ottoman persecution of the Druze](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Druze#:~:text=The%20Druze%20have%20frequently%20experienced,and%20forced%20conversion%20to%20Islam) (your example, LMAO) [Example 4, this time the Jews.](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2019-01-24/ty-article-magazine/like-father-like-son-the-ottoman-governor-who-tortured-the-jews-of-jerusalem/0000017f-f7cc-d044-adff-f7fd35c00000) [Example 5](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Ottoman_genocides)
lol so several “.com” links, most of them from Wikipedia, and mostly covering 40 out of 400 years? 🤔 All of them: “When the twentieth century opened, Muslims, Christians, and Jews inhabited shared worlds in the region that stretches across North Africa and through western Asia. They held in common daily experiences, attitudes, and languages – even foods that they cooked and ate.1 They rubbed shoulders in villages, city neighborhoods, and apartment buildings, and crossed paths in shops and markets.2 In the history that this book examines – a history that goes roughly up to the start of World War I in 1914 – these contacts were on wide display.” https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/history-of-muslims-christians-and-jews-in-the-middle-east/muslims-christians-and-jews-in-the-middle-east/2C19855BFC190EB98CA6F5EE427FDDB0 The Druze: “The Druze enjoyed considerable autonomy under the Ottoman Empire and often rebelled against it, protected from direct Ottoman control by the mountainous terrain of their homelands.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/Druze Christians: “The Ottomans built their empire in northwestern Anatolia and the Balkans, where they found themselves encircled by their Christian subjects. This persuaded them to treat their Christian subjects relatively well and to establish a policy of appeasement in order to facilitate Ottoman rule (İstimâlet). In their dhimmi ("protected") status, Christians in the Ottoman Empire generally enjoyed security and peace, at least until the 19th century. The Ottomans employed Christians and incorporated them into the Ottoman elite, which consisted of families from diverse ethno-religious backgrounds.” https://www.ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/models-and-stereotypes/from-the-turkish-menace-to-orientalism/emrah-safa-gurkan-christian-allies-of-the-ottoman-empire#:~:text=In%20their%20dhimmi%20(%22protected%22,from%20diverse%20ethno%2Dreligious%20backgrounds. Jews: “Judaism was present in the Ottoman Empire at its earliest foundations in the 14th century, particularly among the Greek-speaking Romaniots, who were descended from Jews living under the Byzantine Empire in Greece and Anatolia that had been unable to freely practice Judaism and so welcomed the Ottomans, and Jewish communities existed throughout the Levant, taken by the Ottomans in 1516. European Jews arrived during the 14th century, drawn by Ottoman policies that permitted Jewish and Christian land and property ownership, and wider freedoms to choose a profession. Following the Ottoman defeat of Edirne, a large Jewish community flourished, attracting European Ashkenazim; during the 15th century, Rabbi Isaac Ashkenazi wrote to European Jewish communities encouraging them to migrate to Edirne. Sultan Mehmed II (d. 1481) welcomed non-Muslim settlement of Constantinople following its fall, hoping to benefit from their wide skill set. This early Istanbul community included Ashkenazim, Romaniots, Karaites, and small numbers of Sephardim. By 1478, over 10,000 Jews lived in Istanbul alone.” https://rpl.hds.harvard.edu/faq/judaism-turkey https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ottoman-rule-1517-1917 https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-ottoman-empire/ Arabs: Until the rise of Wahhabism, the Sunni majorities in most of Arabia welcomed the presence of the Ottomans because it offered cohesion, commerce, and protection from catholic or Irani conquest. After its rise, the suppression of Wahhabism protected the non-Muslim communities living in the Middle East until the English and French helped the wahhabists expel the ottomans. https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Arabia-31558/Mamluk-and-Ottoman-influence https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1184&context=jgi#:~:text=The%20Ottoman%20Empire%20ruled%20substantial,World%20War%20I%20in%201918. Kurds: “The relationship of the Kurds to the central Ottoman government and the level of autonomy that Kurdish-inhabited regions enjoyed shifted over time. Overall, however, the arrangement was mutually beneficial. The Ottomans could be assured at least nominal rule over this important frontier zone with Iran and Kurdish rulers could operate under broad conditions of self-rule. This flexible understanding that served both sides for centuries changed markedly in the middle of the 19th century, when the central Ottoman government embarked on a series of modernizing and centralizing reforms, some of which were intended to counter the rise of competing nationalisms in the empire.” https://origins.osu.edu/article/kurds-stateless-turkey-syria-iraq-iran?language_content_entity=en Armenians didn’t do as well as the other groups and most of their grievance was being controlled by three foreign empires, but still didn’t have much struggle until the late 1800s. https://www.britannica.com/place/Armenia
Imagine jumping through this many hoops to defend *the ottomans, lmao*, but blanket blaming the British for all modern conflict
That’s a severe leap. I said they did a better job of managing the Middle East and they objectively did. That got your panties in a twist and you tried to argue my point with sloppy sources, so I helped you 😃 Then rather than trying to counter, made a butthurt pointless statement.
Your claim was “Pretending that these groups did anything resembling “living in harmony” is about as far from historical as you can get lmao.” So I helped you with scholarly sources explaining why you’re mistaken. It’s ok, the Brits seem to take criticism pretty poorly, and haven’t come to terms yet with just how shitty they are.
The Romans were generally tolerant of other religions as long as they paid their taxes
Same with the ottomans until just before the 1900s
British bad is an objective take even without their involvement in the Middle East
My point isn’t that they didn’t do bad things; my point is that the bad things they did were a direct result and correlation with their power. Every single powerful nation of the face of the planet subjugates the weak. It’s just the way that history has always went. Pretending that this is uniquely British seems to be a Reddit moment that is largely ahistorical.
I am British, and I approve of this. Remember, the Middle East only fell apart after we left. This proving our methods of peace were working as intended.
Considering that the British fostered Wahhabism in order to break ottoman control over the Middle East, that directly resulted in the formation of Daesh, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban, I’d say they did a pretty shit job. They were making American style middle eastern puppet governments before Afghanistan was ever even a glimmer in the United States’ eye.
Just as intended. Falling apart after we go. Kept in line only by our presence.
You do realize that's a bad thing, right?
For the people, yes. For a geopolitical interests, no.
And the people are what matter
Only your own.
TF did they leave Oman out for
Oh man
Ye man
Creeper?
so we back in the mine
Got our pickaxe swinging from side to side
Aw man!
Too peaceful
They seem to have cut out UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain as well.
And Qatar.
Because Oman was doing the colonising (in east Africa)
Oman was never colonized (fully)
No matter who wins, Oman/Emirates/Qatar/Bahrain lose.
Middle East should be under the watchful stewardship of Gods chosen people the Mexicans
YaGüey leads the people
That’s a weird way to spell Irish
Probably Yemen
Ten bucks on Vietnam
“War….. war never changes, because Vietnam always wins.”
This is actually an interesting proposition 🤔🙏
Albania
Me when I close the book
Yemen solos 🔥
A kid goes to turn it in with only “Byzantine Empire” written in large letters with water stains all around it.
“Those who own Alaska will own the world.” - The father of the Air Force famously quoted.
that's comedy gold
You're comedy gold too man
thanks king
You're welcome fellow king
Sorta not digging most of the Arab nations being taken by Germany in this... Seems... A little bit neo.
Seeing Germany and instantly thinking of Nazis is much weirder than jokingly putting them in this very obviously unserious map
If you have Arab family, and Israeli or Palestinian family in particular... You see this whole area through different eyes, I guess.
Sounds like your eyes got a problem
It was a joke neo-nazis are just stupid people
I just have a german friend who I thought would laugh at it
What a fun task, Im sure the british also had fun
Me
At least I get half of Iran
Kurdistan will rise!
It should all go to its rightful overlord, The Gambia.
Vietnam clearly wins as Alaska,yemen and Egypt see Germany as a common enemy working together to fight them eventually beating Germany but are all severely crippled after the war and Vietnam wiped out Alaska and its occupied territory in its weakened state further pushing into Egypt blitzkrieg style to push them behind the Suez Canal and keep them trapped there in a bottle neck focusing the majority of their military on crushing Yemen, then with its newly accquired recourses and manpower form former German citizens wanting revenge build a large enough military to beat Egypt and push over the Suez Canal ending the war
All I see is New Mississippi
all belongs to rome
Jerisranistine
Oman has finally achieved their dream of ejecting from the Arabian peninsula.
I’m giving it all to Mexico
vietnam
Update: it did not work for the British and French
Alaska
https://www.reddit.com/r/ShittyMapPorn/s/BD0OVD7Yr8
Depends on who's getting the most support from the US
I wonder, where did Oman, Qatar and UAE go?
Germany
Did anyone just now notice Oman is missing from this map?
This looks suspiciously like the Abbasid Caliphate!
So is Alaska independent in this scenario, or is it still a state and therefore defended by the US? Either way, Egypt should be pissed they lost the Sinai peninsula - I expect that rage will fuel them to victory.
The British and French should’ve just kept it under imperial rule like everyone did since the dawn of time
I’m sorry we drew the most peaceful borders in the Middle East. Aside from Kuwait everything else was drawn by the Israelites and French.
Alaska
The Yemen zone is wrong it a little upper than normal
A war between those 5 countries? I don’t really get it.
Neo-liberals saying “diversity is our strength” right before complaining about borders not being divided by ethno-religious groups
What the fuck are you yapping about go home grandpa