My apologies, I only just saw your reply. The partition itself was a byproduct of the overall "Dissolution" of the HRE. It was never reversed, merely continuously re-drawn ad infinitum following the end of the Napoleonic wars.Wasn't this partition reversed after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, though?
Overall no government has managed to both:
1. Maintain it's original Constitution
2. Hold it's original territory
Within the territorial footprint of the former HRE at any point since 1806. Take Germany for instance, the core territories are still there but it's gone through what four completely different governments and two more partitions since 1866? All that while claiming and losing territory amounting to twice it's current size at least twice?
That lack of stability is primarily what I intended to highlight in my original comment.
I certainly don't object to the characterization you're presenting. I do generally assign greater significance to the original partitioning and dissolution of the HRE.The break-up of the Soviet Union itself was relatively peaceful, though. Indeed, the main troubles occurred on the periphery--in Transnistria, in Nagorno-Karabakh, in Abkhazia, in South Ossetia, et cetera.
As for Yugoslavia, some parts of it--such as Macedonia's secession--were peaceful while other parts of it weren't. Of course, what might have helped was if NATO would have militarily intervened in Yugoslavia at the very beginning inside of it 1995. Or, alternatively, had Bosnia and Herzegovina been partitioned between Serbia and Croatia in Yugoslav times, there might not have been a war in Bosnia--and certainly not as severe of a war--in the first place.
Given that, IMO, partitioning created the problem I can't say I believe further partitioning would fix it.
I tend to agree with you on this. That being said, it could be equally true that had we cultivated a relationship with Mohammed Mosaddegh and Iran rather than sponsoring the coup in 1953, America could have relied on Iranian assistance in normalizing diplomatic and religious relations in the Middle East.One issue with the partition of Palestine, though, is that most of the Jews there were recent immigrants. Thus, a Jewish-majority state in Palestine might have been more objectionable to Arabs than, say, a Christian-majority state in Mount Lebanon would have.
After all, in 1953 Iran was a whole lot more progressive than most of the world and had told the Soviets to "kick rocks" of their own initiative to boot.
I won't disagree that you could challenge my assertions about stability. In fact I'm certain that you can raise a number of very strong arguments in addition to the one you're presenting here. By certain metrics I would even agree with you.I could challenge you with a counter-proposal, though. Specifically, in spite of being much more Balkanized than it was in the past, Europe today is also relatively stable. Indeed, other than the Balkans, Caucasus, and Donbass, Europe appears to have been pretty peaceful ever since 1945.
In turn, one could say that if a partition occurs and Great Powers are willing to enforce this partition over the long(er)-run, then a partition is more likely to be successful than would otherwise be the case.
Stability however, at least as far as I value it, can't simply be considered as a "lack of open warfare between nation-states."
To use a blatant rhetorical device, the Balkans, Caucusus and Donets Basin are - by your own admission - both unstable and a part of Europe. Ergo Europe has not been peaceful since 1945.
I don't want to simply gloss over the point however because I believe that the underlying issues tend to spread their impact well beyond the borders of the affected areas.
Consider that Eastern Europe has a significantly higher rate of violent crime than the rest of the continent. Or that the economies of these countries are very weak. That there is strong evidence of Russian interference in all levels of Eastern European politics and has been for the last 30 years. Or, alternately that the US was drawn into a confrontation with Russia over Georgian sovereignty only a few years ago. Not to mention Euromaidan three years ago.
I don't actually disagree that were great powers to actually enforce their partitions they could be successful. I think that goes without saying, but I can't think of any one example where it has actually happened, historically. Given that I can present innumerable examples of instability linked to unenforced partitions and that no one has historically enforced a partition "long enough" I tend to conclude that it's better not to partition than to try.