How should historical conflicts and territorial disputes be settled?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
Complex and with many sides to it, at the point of what it is it should realistically be resolved with one side taking out another but this is highly unlikely.
One side taking out the other won't be possible without mass ethnic cleansing. So, yeah, I certainly--and thankfully--don't see this actually happening. The ideal solution would IMHO be separation--something along the lines of the 2003 Geneva Initiative. Having Israel annex the West Bank would be plain stupid since it's going to result in a massive increase in Israel's Muslim population.

In my eyes Northern Ireland should stay with Britain.
Agreed.

Argentina has no strong claim whatsoever, they were defeated when they tried to take the islands and the population resolved to stay with Britain.
Yeah, Argentina would have been wiser if it would have continued trying to negotiate with Britain about these islands as opposed to going to war with Britain over them. Now Britain is going to refuse to give them up at the very least until all veterans of the Falkland War have already passed away.

I could see the logistical appeal in having Argentina annex these islands, but Yeah, Argentina really screwed up by invading them back in 1982.

Assuming you mean the Yugoslav Wars and not the Balkan Wars (They were in the 1910s.) then I would say that there is no peaceful solution. If any side tried to make any moves such as taking Kosovo or partitioning Bosnia then a war is guaranteed.
A solution over Kosovo might actually be possible if northern Kosovo is given to Serbia in exchange for Serbian agreement to recognize Kosovar independence.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,793
Republika Srpska
I think the peace should be preserved at all costs, but there is also the other side of the coin that is not popular to mention: too much "preserving peace" is appeasment and could actually push the other side towards escalating in order to achieve more of its demands. The most famous example of course being Hitler.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
I think the peace should be preserved at all costs, but there is also the other side of the coin that is not popular to mention: too much "preserving peace" is appeasment and could actually push the other side towards escalating in order to achieve more of its demands. The most famous example of course being Hitler.
Yep. IMHO, Britain and France should have held firm on the Sudetenland and insisted on an unbiased plebiscite or otherwise be willing to go to war. If anti-Nazi Germans would have subsequently overthrown Hitler and the Nazis in an internal coup, then they could get their plebiscite in the Sudetenland.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,793
Republika Srpska
Well, I was talking more generally. Preserving peace is a noble task, but going too far in that direction can actually backfire.
 
Feb 2019
1,040
Serbia
One side taking out the other won't be possible without mass ethnic cleansing. So, yeah, I certainly--and thankfully--don't see this actually happening. The ideal solution would IMHO be separation--something along the lines of the 2003 Geneva Initiative. Having Israel annex the West Bank would be plain stupid since it's going to result in a massive increase in Israel's Muslim population.
Yes, ethnic cleansing or at the very least expulsion of some of the population is sadly inevitable in this scenario it seems to me. If nothing else works return the region to Turkey or Britain and pray that they stay quiet. :smirk:

Yeah, Argentina would have been wiser if it would have continued trying to negotiate with Britain about these islands as opposed to going to war with Britain over them. Now Britain is going to refuse to give them up at the very least until all veterans of the Falkland War have already passed away.

I could see the logistical appeal in having Argentina annex these islands, but Yeah, Argentina really screwed up by invading them back in 1982.
The ''logistical appeal'' is not an argument, I want to see the nice borders of Lichtenstein annexing all of Europe but that would be ridiculous. Just because something looks nice on a map doesn't mean it should be that way.


A solution over Kosovo might actually be possible if northern Kosovo is given to Serbia in exchange for Serbian agreement to recognize Kosovar independence.
I imagine that a compromise would not be an option. The Kosovars would want the north as they do see it as their territory and the Serbs would never accept simply abandoning such an important piece of land so easily. I'm struggling to think of a peaceful solution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
Yes, ethnic cleansing or at the very least expulsion of some of the population is sadly inevitable in this scenario it seems to me. If nothing else works return the region to Turkey or Britain and pray that they stay quiet. :smirk:
I honestly don't think that it is inevitable, but if Israel will continue moving to the right, you could have an escalating pressure campaign on the Palestinians to emigrate. Mass expulsions would probably be unrealistic short of something really drastic, though. Israel isn't Burma--not yet, at least.

The ''logistical appeal'' is not an argument, I want to see the nice borders of Lichtenstein annexing all of Europe but that would be ridiculous. Just because something looks nice on a map doesn't mean it should be that way.
I mean that it would be easier to administer by a country that's next door rather than by a country that's thousands of miles away.

I imagine that a compromise would not be an option. The Kosovars would want the north as they do see it as their territory and the Serbs would never accept simply abandoning such an important piece of land so easily. I'm struggling to think of a peaceful solution.
If this solution won't actually work for one or both sides, then I'm not sure that there actually is an alternative solution to this problem. I don't think that Serbia would be willing to give up on every single last inch of Kosovo, so yeah.
 
Jun 2017
634
maine
Your spirit was born in 1860? ;) Was your spirit in Maine for the entirety of the last 159 years? :)
No, I/it/we started off in Georgia and have been heading northward ever since. Maine is one of the best placed that I've lived (although I really liked Edinburgh and Boston).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
No, I/it/we started off in Georgia and have been heading northward ever since. Maine is one of the best placed that I've lived (although I really liked Edinburgh and Boston).
So, your spirit has some memories of the American Civil War? ;)

BTW, it would be pretty cool to be a Scandinavian-descended person in Georgia in 1860. I don't think that there were very many such people.