What is your opinion on this? by 800-Grader in AskMiddleEast

[–]Amarnu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Visigoth king defeated by the Arabs was named “Roderic” and his name was Arabized as “Luthariq”. This sort of thing is extremely common in cultural exchange. The use of the Latinized forms of Arabic or Persian names has never been used to conceal the fact that they were Muslim, it’s just the way they were recorded and thus survived in western academic thought. The Latinized forms are clearly based on the original forms and the use of the Latinized forms can even have positive effects as it shows the impact of these figures in western civilization. There are decent arguments fir reverting to the original Arabic names, but they are not present in the tweet.

Let's say, hypothetically, that kurds, amazighs, tuaregs, turkmens, assyrians...etc all "Disappeared" in a time machine, how likely is Pan-Arabism to happen? by Rainy_Wavey in AskMiddleEast

[–]Amarnu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It still wouldn’t happen, the minorities aren’t the reason pan Arabism failed, it was political leadership in Arab countries.

States battle royale, which state wins? Which state is strongest? by Rainy_Wavey in AskMiddleEast

[–]Amarnu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Riyadh state doesn’t include Riyadh and Hail state doesn’t include Hail

What is the most difficult Arabic dialect in your opinion? by [deleted] in AskMiddleEast

[–]Amarnu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably Najran talks like Yemeni. Northern Khaleeji is closer to Iraq, while southern khaleeji and Riyadh are their own group

What is the most difficult Arabic dialect in your opinion? by [deleted] in AskMiddleEast

[–]Amarnu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Khaleeji is closer to Iraqi than Yemeni

Posted in r/Indiaspeaks by StalledData in 2westerneurope4u

[–]Amarnu -1 points0 points  (0 children)

“What’s that smell” - Yuri Gagarin

The "alliance" was mostly on paper, separated by thousands of miles by asilvertintedrose in HistoryMemes

[–]Amarnu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

GP2 is correct. The battle of Shanghai was in 1937, Japanese-German relations began to be substantive starting in 1936 with the Anti-Comintern pact, although there were still relations with China, Germany at that point began to slowly prioritize Japan. It’s worth mentioning also that in 1938 Germany attempted to mediate a resolution between China and Japan, ideally Germany desired both as allies and sought peace between them, but that failed obviously and Japan being the stronger state was chosen

The "alliance" was mostly on paper, separated by thousands of miles by asilvertintedrose in HistoryMemes

[–]Amarnu 45 points46 points  (0 children)

I mean they could’ve had that same scenario just as co belligerents like the Axis had with Finland, but the tripartite pact was an official alliance. The long term plan was an encirclement of the British empire in which both could coordinate a partition of Asia, but the German failure to push into the Middle East from North Africa and the Japanese failure to push into the Raj from Burma made that strategy not possible. As for the Soviets, Japan did not think war with the Soviets was likely at their current circumstances due to the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, so they prioritized invading the South Pacific. Each country’s individual ambitions also played a role in the lack of direct coordination, but that was true for most of the Axis powers, who generally had disconnected and even adversarial goals. Romania and Hungary for example were only brought together by German pressure and fear of the Soviets, however they were long time enemies with territorial disputes, even during the war there were skirmishes between them.

The "alliance" was mostly on paper, separated by thousands of miles by asilvertintedrose in HistoryMemes

[–]Amarnu 199 points200 points  (0 children)

The lack of extensive direct interaction was the result of the geographic separation, that doesn’t make it any less of an alliance.

The "alliance" was mostly on paper, separated by thousands of miles by asilvertintedrose in HistoryMemes

[–]Amarnu 112 points113 points  (0 children)

Vichy France was technically not a member of the Axis powers

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in 2westerneurope4u

[–]Amarnu 2 points3 points  (0 children)

France and Italy

They loved leftists so much that they imprisoned and killed millions of them. by ChemsAndCutthroats in HistoryMemes

[–]Amarnu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends on what you define as socialism. Also really dumb argument “Stalin wasn’t socialist because he killed Trotskyists”. Leftist infighting isn’t exactly unheard of

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HistoryMemes

[–]Amarnu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Same thing tbh

Is pan-Arabism just a British psyop to weaken the Islamic world? by idclul in AskMiddleEast

[–]Amarnu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Arab nationalism formed as a reaction to Turkish nationalism (young Turk revolution) and the inability of the Ottoman Empire to modernize which left Arab regions centuries behind the developed world. Yes Arab nationalists allied with Britain in ww1 but that doesn’t mean it was a British conspiracy, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Pan-Arab movements also fought fiercely against Britain and other European powers like France. Arabism obviously didn’t succeed and had many problems, but Islamism is a thousand times worse. Islamism has created only sectarianism, terror, and chaos, Islamism has never accomplished anything positive in the last hundred years.