History questions not worth their own thread IV

[Dachs]

Something called the "deep state". It's a little complicated, but apparently there is an organization (or more than one) connected with current and former officers in the Turkish military that is anti-republican and pro-Kemalist. Various terrorist actions over the past several decades have been ascribed to this "Ergenekon", and several hundred people have been arrested, but the problem is it's awfully hard to tell where the treason ends and the purges-to-clear-the-army-of-the-current-prime-minister's-political-opponents begin.

 

[Tee Kay]

Turkey actually used to be way more nationalistic. Under the AKP it has actually mellowed somewhat, especially towards Muslim countries.

The tension with Greece is mainly due to disputed maritime claims and the Cyprus issue (basically, Palestine-on-an-Island). Both issues are are politically uncomfortable for both sides and unlikely to be solved any time soon (unless maybe if Ataturk comes back from the dead).

Edit: crosspost with Dachs. Yes, the Deep State thing certainly raises complications.

 

[overkill9]

Kemalist - remind me isn't Kemal a national founding father of Turkey? So they are trying to go against those loyal to the ideals of their founder to do....what exactly?

This deep state thing sounds like an exaggerated tale based off of a group that may have wielded an influence at one point, but is now being used to frame opposition officials and also to put fear in people by those trying to live off its clout. Very typical political ploy.

 

[Dachs]

Kemalist - remind me isn't Kemal a national founding father of Turkey? So they are trying to go against those loyal to the ideals of their founder to do....what exactly?

Kemal founded the country, but he basically ran things like the other pint-pot dictators of the time (like Metaxas and Mussolini). It was a one-part state that was effectively a secularist military dictatorship. Kemalism is associated in modern Turkey with ultranationalist army officers running the state and cracking down on civil liberties, chiefly those associated with Islam. It was only decades after Atatürk died that something close to republican government was actually installed in Turkey.

This deep state thing sounds like an exaggerated tale based off of a group that may have wielded an influence at one point, but is now being used to frame opposition officials and also to put fear in people by those trying to live off its clout. Very typical political ploy.

That's certainly the opposition angle. And I think there's a lot of truth to that. But these Ergenekon types were apparently responsible for the Susurluk scandal, where army officers started dealing drugs to take over the narcotics market and destroy the biggest source of funding for some of those groups, then started murdering government officials who started to find out. And something happened in 2006, although whether it was an extremely disjointed and unplanned knee-jerk reaction by a few guys working alone or a foiled counterrevolutionary plot by the whole Ergenekon cabal is, like I said, unclear. I think that the balance of evidence indicates that Erdogan is not making this up ex nihilo, but the AKP is clearly exaggerating the extent of the Kemalist hold on the military to shore up its own power.

 

[Quackers]

Sounds like a good plot for a political thriller IMO.

Was there any point during or prior to the American revolutionary wars which could of stopped independence and meant that Britain would remain in control?

 

[Cutlass]

Sounds like a good plot for a political thriller IMO.

Was there any point during or prior to the American revolutionary wars which could of stopped independence and meant that Britain would remain in control?

I would tend to think that in the short run the answer would likely have been yes, but in the longer run the answer would be no.

Had king and parliament given in to the primary American demands for representation and redress of grievances, I think there's a reasonable chance of no revolution in 1775-6. In 1770 most American leaders still thought of themselves as English first, and only gave up that notion grudgingly in the face of British intransigence. That said, Americans and English were becoming very much different people. And I find it very hard to imagine that that divergence wouldn't eventually lead to separation.

 

[Dachs]

Just because the Commonwealth reform process failed in the first part of the twentieth century doesn't mean it had to fail.

 

[overkill9]

Americans were very self-sufficient and their frontier mentality coupled with the fact that whoever came over had a good reason, either by ambition, need to create a new home, or wanting a better world away from the old, along with a whole northern continent ripe for a new nation means british would have had a great deal of problem keeping it. One way or another, America was bound to be born independent of british control, more so if you keep in mind the revolutionary mindset sweeping through europe at the time. Treating americans like second class citizens certainly didn't help.

Commonwealth eventually downgraded into a social club - britain unfortunately holds little sway over independent policies of these nations.

 

[Dachs]

Americans were very self-sufficient and their frontier mentality coupled with the fact that whoever came over had a good reason, either by ambition, need to create a new home, or wanting a better world away from the old, along with a whole northern continent ripe for a new nation means british would have had a great deal of problem keeping it. One way or another, America was bound to be born independent of british control, more so if you keep in mind the revolutionary mindset sweeping through europe at the time. Treating americans like second class citizens certainly didn't help.

Commonwealth eventually downgraded into a social club - britain unfortunately holds little sway over independent policies of these nations.

Cultural differences like that have existed within states as much as forcing divisions of states. I think that the chance probably existed to overcome - or, perhaps, ignore - such differences provided institutional political framework was in place to do so.

Have to admit that I wasn't aware of any revolutionary mindset sweeping through Europe during the 1770s, nor of any reason it couldn't be ignored, co-opted, or crushed.

And, yes, I am aware that the Commonwealth reforms failed. But my point was that they didn't have to. Arguably, they didn't even have to fail after the collapse of Irish Home Rule.

 

[History_Buff]

Was there any point during or prior to the American revolutionary wars which could of stopped independence and meant that Britain would remain in control?

I think there were quite a few points where the British were within reach of crushing the American forces in the Revolutionary war. They had quite a few bad breaks owing either to bad luck, or animosity between commanders.

I think its entirely plausible they could have won the military campaign, but as for whether that could hold long term is tough to say. I suspect the only way to pull it off would be some representation for the colonies in the English government, but as I recall the Crown and the pro-Crown Tories were very much opposed to that notion.

 

[Traitorfish]

I recall reading that a proposed settlement was the constitution of the North American colonies (individually or collectively) as a distinct sovereign state under George III. Was that ever popular, or likely?

 

[Bowsling]

Well, it's worked in most of the other major British colonies...

 

[overkill9]

One question for the brits: Do they still hold some kind of nationalistic 'you colonialists' attitude like grumpy old 90 somethings against US? Because aside from a few jibes here and there US doesn't really give a about british in regards to the war of independence. US more or less treats Brits like cousins they used to quarrel with when they were kids. Of course, that's only if no one makes a big fuss about it from the other side of the ocean but the general attitude is that of indifference with some smattering of cousinly filial ties.

 

[privatehudson]

I highly doubt that the negative feelings about America expressed by some Brits have anything directly to do with the Revolutionary War. Hell the average person on the street knows so little about most history subjects that aside from the occasional joke along the lines of "wanting our land back" I doubt most people even think about it. Any history based angst that does exist is more likely to find its roots in say WW2 than the Revolutionary War.

 

[Masada]

I don't think World War Two is a much better explanation. Most people know the bare outlines and are limited to quips about 'turning up late' and not much else.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Sounds like a good plot for a political thriller IMO.

Was there any point during or prior to the American revolutionary wars which could of stopped independence and meant that Britain would remain in control?

While the answer may be yes, it's hard to imagine a scenario where this could take place at a practical level. There were two options to deal with the representation issue - Home Rule and representation in Parliament. Representation in Parliament would have upset things at Westminster too much because there was still strife with Scottish Presbyterians in Parliament. Plus American representatives would quickly lose legitimacy back home since they would never be with their constituents. Finally, it would require massive electoral reform since major English cities still didn't have representation in Parliament. Home Rule would have been better but I don't know if it would effectively address the revenue issues or enforce British maritime law where Westminster's interests conflicted with American merchants.

So concessions and compromise could have staved off conflict, but I don't see how they would have resolved the problems within.

 

[privatehudson]

Masada:

I wasn't suggesting that WW2 is a major cause of what overall anti-american feeling that does exist in Britain. Its just a better explanation for angst based on historical events than a war that isn't even really taught in schools or anywhere near as popular in terms of TV programmes, films and generic history books.

I agree that the average person's knowledge of WW2 is probably limited to the bare outlines, but I doubt they know hardly anything worthwhile about the American Revolution, so WW2 is still a more likely origin, but by no means the best or only one. If I gave the impression that I thought otherwise I'm sorry for the sloppy wording of my last post.

 

[Louis XXIV]

WWII or the Cold War? I could see American actions post-WWII breeding hostility, but what did we do during the war that would cause resentment?

 

[Dachs]

We kinda helped dismantle the Empire.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Deliberately tried (and succeeded) in marginalizing Great Britain into a junior partner in the alliance.