It's "partly" funny to see all the grandiose plans of the past that never came through. Humanity reacts short term but when you take some distance you realize most of ideas in the air are wrong somehow.
> A Radical Plan for Peace in Europe
It is radical, but if you drop the 'c' you've got a more descriptive title.
Sure, it seems like an insane plan, but just imagine being able to tour every major European region in a couple seconds. You could even do it over and over until you got dizzy.
> drop the 'c' you've got a more descriptive title.
> A Radial Plan for Peace in Europe
> A Radical Plan for Peae in Europe
> Divide and oncur: A Radical Plan for Peace in Europe (1920)
> Divide and Conur: A Radical Plan for Peace in Europe (1920)
"Radial" plan? Seems to fit, spoke-hub layout and all.
>> There are alternative arrangements, but P.A.M. assures his reader that he has chosen “the most advantageous and fair” division, which will instantly resolve the Balkan question and all other tensions.
This is why academics and idealists must be mocked without regard when they come up with idiotisms like this.
They did that in Africa: they created some arbitrary country lines without regards for the local tribes. The results? Constant political fighting and wars because you now forced two tribes which hated each other with a force of a thousand suns into the same new country.
So it wasn't "left" vs "right" but "Triba A" vs "Tribe B". No chance they'd get togather or that people would move from triba A to B because of some "political" opinion. It was more like blood revenge.
The belief that you could force two hating cultures into loving each other because you draw up some arbitrary lines on the map and say "now get well together, children" is [redacted] to say the least.
I'm not convinced by this argument. Plenty of ethnostates waging war on each other as well as stable multiethnic states.
but sometimes western powers cultivated rancor between existed tribe. then leave them in same country.
See: Crimea. Israel. Etc.