How much blame does the British Empire bear for (this stuff)

[Dominus Atheos]

I'm not trying to pick on the British, and certainly not the modern UK, but I realized that several bad events in the latter half of the 20th century and 21st century can be directly traced back to actions by the British in the first half of the 20th century. In short:

1.a WWI

And how much did WWI directly lead to

1.b the Russian revolution and especially the Red/October revolution.

In other words, without WWI what are the chances of Russia turning communist?

2. The violence in the Middle East, including

2.a the Israel vs Palestine, with regards to the Belfast deceleration, and the conquest and partitioning of the Ottoman Empire

2.b the ongoing sectarian violence in the rest of the Middle East, which I have heard blamed on the British drawing basically random lines on a map when they pulled out(?) or something, I wasn't really clear.

On an unrelated note, thread title character counts are too low.

[Starglider]

No actually several bad events in the later half of the 20th century can be directly traced back to America.

Which I haved heard blamed on CIA basically playing kingmakers and propping up fascist regiemes (?), or something, I wasn't really clear.

Wow, isn't making random vague accusations with no supporting rationale fun.

[Elheru Aran]

It's a lot more complicated picture than just pointing fingers at one party or another. The British Empire does bear some blame, but so do the Americans, the Russians, the French, the Germans, etc... not to mention the various things that people in the colonies did before and after they achieved independence.

Take the Middle East; that got split up between the British, French, and Russians after WWI as they partitioned up the old Ottoman Empire, iirc. Lebanon and Syria, I think, were parts of the French concession. That's just one example though.

[Thanas]

This is not a good thread. It is far better to ask a specific question and then go from there.

[Elheru Aran]

I'll take a stab at this, but as I said earlier, the picture is pretty complex.

Bear in mind that I'm not a professional scholar or an expert by any means.

I'm not trying to pick on the British, and certainly not the modern UK, but I realized that several bad events in the latter half of the 20th century and 21st century can be directly traced back to actions by the British in the first half of the 20th century. In short:

1.a WWI

Britain didn't really contribute to starting WWI as much as they were obligated to take part once things got rolling. They did a fair bit of saber-rattling throughout the latter part of the 19th century and the first decade or so of the 20th, but apart from the odd colonial skirmish it was generally just normal diplomatic posturing ("I say, sir, your moustache is ridiculous and we could wipe it off your face like that!").

Some people have seen their worldwide colonial expansion and the strength of their naval forces as provocative factors, and that's possible. Everybody who was a "Power" was getting into the colonial game, though. And ever since the Napoleonic Wars the British navy had been a preeminent military presence-- it was largely the expected status quo.

And how much did WWI directly lead to

1.b the Russian revolution and especially the Red/October revolution.

As far as the British went? Very little upon their part apart from being supporters of the Czarist monarchy and, of course, allied nation.

The greater contributing factors to the Russian revolution were domestic social conditions, popular unrest, a highly unpopular noble class that abused its privileges and held disproportionate amounts of wealth, a military that was large but had poor morale thanks to all the above, etc... Really the reasons for the Revolution don't need a whole lot more added to them.

In other words, without WWI what are the chances of Russia turning communist?

Pretty decent, really. Might have taken a little longer, but a revolution of some sort was fairly inevitable unless some serious social reforms were undertaken. That wasn't really going to happen given the inertia of the noble class and the Czarist regime's resistance to change.

2. The violence in the Middle East, including

2.a the Israel vs Palestine, with regards to the Belfast deceleration, and the conquest and partitioning of the Ottoman Empire

2.b the ongoing sectarian violence in the rest of the Middle East, which I have heard blamed on the British drawing basically random lines on a map when they pulled out(?) or something, I wasn't really clear.

This, now, the British do have a bit of blame falling upon them. They basically took the region of Palestine, told the Zionist (using the term in its literal sense) movement that they could have it, and after some token gestures upon their part towards the Arabs in the region such as trying to forbid Jewish immigration until after the State of Israel was declared, etc... packed up and left the Jews and Arabs to work it out for themselves.

As for the rest of the Middle East, not a whole lot beyond the usual farce that passed for giving their former colonial domains independence. Largely the issues that are ongoing there have more to rest upon local sectarian differences-- the Sunni/Shiite division, for example, or various coups and the reactions to those, etc. Problems with who gets the juicy oil money, who currently wants to kill the Israelis, who wants to rule this country versus those who are actually in power... etc.

Really, the Middle East is as much a result of American intervention, if not far more than the European powers. The US has always been very entangled in the region thanks to the oil resources there. Iran is probably the shining example of what results-- US support gives them a Shah, who then pisses off the country to the point of a popular insurgency that throws him over in favor of the Islamic regime...

[Ziggy Stardust]

2.a the Israel vs Palestine, with regards to the Belfast deceleration, and the conquest and partitioning of the Ottoman Empire

You're thinking of the Balfour Declaration. The Belfast Declaration is a WHO initiative for sustainable development.

[Thanas]

Yeah, this thread is not going to evolve into something good. Locked.