Talk:Kurdistan

This article was imported from the previous wiki in its current form. It contains a few things that don't match, though.

I've been collecting some info regarding the Ottoman Empire; the opinions differe somewhat, but the general tendency seems to be that the Ottoman Empire was nót defeated in GW1, but instead collapsed under its own weight in 1922. So, there was no Treaty of Sèvres, and Kurdistan and Armenia (along with Lebanon and probably some other countries) where probably created in that year.

Furthermore, I vaguely remember that there is no Atatürk at all *there*. Or was there? In any case, I suppose the War that is described probably took place, with the same Treaty as a result. Do others have an opinion about all that? --IJzeren Jan 03:59, 14 November 2005 (PST)

I also remember the Empire collapsing with only minor warfare involved. Steg

Whoah, whoah, whoah. Communist? I'd rather we keep Kurdistan a democratic republic, even if it's one with socialist tendencies. (Considering the PKK, the HDP and many Kurdish nationalist groups *here*, it makes sense for the Kurds to tend left-wing. Still don't think they should be communist though.) Juanmartinvelezlinares 05:10, 19 May 2017 (PDT)

-> I wonder if they have gone to *here*s Rojava-style socialism route as well.--General tiu 08:33, 19 May 2017 (PDT)

Eh. The like two of you that regularly operate on the wiki have been adding stuff without following the rigorous "Don't touch anything!" philosophy when Padraic ruled supreme. I've been rigorously stifled by QSS and stuff around here, so this is just me finally having some fun. It's not like anyone here's out watching what any of us write. Communism in IB blows with just about every state being a cutesey monarchy or a boring neoliberal republic. This is my way of finally having some fun around here. Misterxeight 20:26, 19 May 2017 (PDT)

Indeed, I think I have to add Kurdistan to the list of Communist states, right?--General tiu 21:10, 19 May 2017 (PDT)

I'm not disagreeing with your ideas based on QSS, really--Kurdistan is, like approximately half the wiki, a blank slate. I guess my main issue with Communist Kurdistan is---it doesn't feel right? Like yeah, the Kurds are left-wing in general, and considering that the Kurdish history with the great Satan Turkey is even worse *there*, it makes sense for them to stay that way in Ill Bethisad, but--my general image of the Kurds (which, of course, could be totally malarkey) is that they're a liberal, freedom and democracy-loving people who believe in ethnic pluralism and democratic socialist government. A dictatorial, state-atheist Kurdistan where political freedom is nope'd out of existence just seems kind of--harsh. Of course, maybe that's not what you were going for with the whole Communist thing--maybe you were thinking, IDK, Menshevikism or something. And if you were going for a Marxist-Leninist type thing, I get that maybe you want IB to have more dark spots--heaven knows I do too. (You can't have a modern world without conflict... ...or maybe that's the capitalist indoctrination telling me what to believe.) I guess we could have a Marxist-Leninist state in the past, which perestroika'd successfully (or not...) and turned into a democratic state, if you want. IDK, sorry if this is being nitpicky/playing devil's advocate--I just wanted to explain my own thoughts.

In all honesty, I don't actually think neoliberalism is that common in IB--if anything, I'd say the opposite is true. (Assuming we're using the same definition of neoliberalism, that is.) IB as a whole actually seems to tend social-democratic, which may say more about our own political biases than it does the conditions in Ill Bethisad. I get what you're saying about monarchies though--there is too many of them in IB. Especially the Americas, IMO, which really shouldn't have as many monarchies as it does--especially not hereditary ones! The history of revolution and turmoil in the Americas (particularly the Latin parts TBH) would seem to disqualify hereditary monarchies in a lot of parts, Native nationalists or no Native nationalists. I kind of wish IB had more elective monarchies, though. Juanmartinvelezlinares 07:32, 20 May 2017 (PDT)

I think there are elective monarchies *there* enough: Italy, the Holy See, the Holy Roman Empire, the Thousand Emirates, the Republic of the Two Crowns, Banaba and Henua. Possibly Malta either. I think I didn't forget any. Now about Kurdistan being communist, it doesn't shock me although with the end of the CSDS I think a failed (or not) Perestroika thing seems to be logical then as Kurdistan would then lose a valuable foreign ally which could supply Kurdistan with plenty of weapons and buy its exports. Also possibly being a landlocked country without large enough resources it could be forced by neighboring muslim conservative military powers (I mean Turkey and Iraaq) to change to a less hostile vision about religion. If you go in direction to a Perstroika situation I suggest you the term Azadkirinê, which means liberalization in Kurdish.--Pedromoderno 18:19, 20 May 2017 (PDT)

I don't have the same positive vibes about the Kurdish people. Like at all. The motto I threw into the infobox,"Kurds have no friends but the mountains, wasn't made up. They are for themselves. They're all tolerating of other minorities because it suits their needs. For now. Communism had some supporters in the mid 20th Century Middle East. My inspiration was the man who overthrew the Iraqi king in 1958, Abdulkerim Kasım, who was half Kurdish and had closeted communist sympathies and dealings with the USSR. I imagined in my head that the first post-Ottoman Kurdish state will be vaguely lefty but tribal rule is still a thing and a corrupt system. The dissatisfied intelligentsia rallied around communism especially at a time when nearby Syria was the opposite, and they chose the ideology as the vehicle with which to crush the power of the local elite, end suffering for the rural poor, and modernize the country. It'd be brutal at first, especially if they go after tribal law and the power of the şeyh's, but the new movement will be a Kurdish nationalist one at heart. As someone who takes religion seriously, I'd hate for them to go after the various faiths in the region that make the country so unique, perhaps the priests, mullahs, & mobeds can be allies of the new communists for the sake of peace. I'm fine with that. It took me a long time to track the Kurdish forms for the names of the president and prime minister, but I chose them carefully as explicitly religious names: the president being named "Ali Ahmet," and the PM "David Zachariah," making them a Shia and an Assyrian Church member. In my headcanon that I adlibbed on the spot last night, I pictured religion coming back into vogue in Kurdistan, with the president being more of an Ali Jinnah type cultural Shia (or of Chechnya's first president, the only one to speak Estonian, who didn't even know how many times of day Sunni Muslims prayed but still maintained he himself was one) that reps the brand but doesn't actually practice, and the latter figure to be a devout Christian and austere fellow to balance each other out. I'm fine with Kurdistan being any type of communist state: in name only like Bavaria or real world China, hardline Stalinist, Leninist, old school Marxist, batshit insane spooky Juche/North Korea kind, I just thought a touch of ideology would bring a bit of spice to IB's political map. I can totally work in a perestroika era and gradualism adaption of the Kurdish economy to the global economy and life without the CSDS to help them out. That was quick thinking: do you speak Kurdish? I really, really, really gotta finish my proposal for Turkey to make sense of the rest of this part of the world, so that has to take precedent over a coherent narrative for Kurdistan to come. Feel free to keep talking and brainstorming, all of you, while I retreat to make Turkey the villain that we all need in this grand narrative-tapestry. Misterxeight 19:34, 21 May 2017 (PDT)

No, I don't speek Kurdish. I just used Google Translator. Your ideas about Kurdistan seem to be good. It's great to have more people thinking about developing the Middle East *there*, I always felt a bit lonely all over these years. About communist Kurdistan a rather prefer something more moderate than Juche-style communism as there are already a good number of different historical radical regimes in *there´s* Middle East (Saudi Arabia especially after deposing king Faisal I al-Saud, Iraaq under Saddaam Hussayn theocratic regime and Syria during its arab-snorist period). More radical regimes could evolve into a violent war around much of the region and I'm not sure if in IB´s geopolitical scene there are foreign/imperialist interests enough to fuel such war. Afterall it's a world less dependeable of oil. When I refer to a more moderate communist Kurdistan I wasn't exactly thinking about something like reformed communism like the 1968 Spring of Prague, just thinking in a stalinist state without being genocidical. Possibly later it evolved into something else ending in a Perestroika-like period during the 1990's.

Quoting you "The dissatisfied intelligentsia rallied around communism especially at a time when nearby Syria was the opposite", Syria between 1949 and 1955 (its arab-snorist period) fits in your idea, I think. Communism possibly became state ideology in Kurdistan around this period, few years later of the birth of the CSDS.--Pedromoderno 17:55, 21 May 2017 (PDT)

Hey, cheers, I'm glad you like it. Plus, I had no idea that Qasim is part of the IB universe as a leader of Iraaq: you think he could play a part in covertly supporting the revolution in Kurdistan? I'm totally fine with having the revolution in the early 60's start off tough and mellowing out over the decades. I also don't want a full on genocide, especially not to the religions of the area. I'm sure by 2017 it'd be fine. Maybe not as democratic as say Western Europe, but democratic enough with a stable economy. Misterxeight 19:34, 21 May 2017 (PDT)

Yes, Abdul Karim Qassim is part of IB Universe. It was one of my first articles and always played quite an important role about my work in IB. Possibly he would be sympathetic to a left-wing revolution in Kurdistan during his rule although most of all, as a pan-arabist, he would surely give much more attention about revolutions and rebellions in the Arab World. Anyway, for him better a friendly Kurdistan separating Iraaq from conservative Turkey than a hostile one. And for Kurdistan better a friendly Iraaq (by then a major regional military power) than a hostile one either.--Pedromoderno 03:02, 22 May 2017 (PDT)