March 8, 1963 was the beginning of this and the final fall of Syria. Syria has long resisted all the military coups that began with the coup of the deranged individual, Husni AZ-Saimon in 1949. After another coup, headed by ADIB al-Shishakli, Syria managed to return to almost normal political life. In 1958, the uniting of the States of Syria and Egypt into a single state, which later Syria will bring all sorts of misfortune. Came to power backward mode. Nasser, with a decent amount of stupidity and ignorance, in fact, established in Syria, the military regime, which was accompanied by economic changes, bearing the seal of socialism. All this marked the beginning of the “brain drain” and capital outflow from the country. The period lasted from 1958 to 1961, while Syria did not come from this state (we are talking about the state of the United Arab Republic, UAR — approx. TRANS.).
This office was the last attempt to save Syria from a “brain drain”, militarization and police control in public institutions. The residents clearly wanted to return the country to normal. People’s aspirations have led by Maamoun al-Kuzbari and Nazim al-Qudsi, together with the group of officers.
Coup “Eighth of March” led to the collapse of all hope for the return of Syria to the Syrians and to return the status of the state, maintaining relations with the West and the East. The country was in a captivity of illusions, the same that prevailed in the Soviet Union in the light of the cold war. The 1963 coup, held by officers of the Baath, was only the beginning of victory village way of thinking on the urban, whether in Syria or before that in Iraq, which today is watching another tragedy, originating in the summer of 1958. The problem is not that the village is trying to move to the city. The problem is that she comes to him with all the hatred and resentment all over the world.
The tragedy in Mosul in the summer of 2014, when ISIS (banned in Russia — approx. ed.) sent sectarian armed groups to seize this city is the result of what happened in the fateful day of July 14, 1958. Then the officers, which, at least, be described as ignorant, thirsting for blood, issued a final verdict of the monarchy, which would constitute the best guarantee for the development and transformation of Iraq into an advanced country. In the end, Iraq is mired in backward ideas of the Baath party, being a prisoner of sectarian sentiments.
In General, over Iraq before the Baath seized power in February 1963, a month before the seizure of power by the Baath party in Syria. Iraq ended the day in the Palace had committed the massacre, claimed the lives of the Royal family of Hashemites (the revolution of July 14, 1941 in Iraq — approx. TRANS.), the family that never made the distinction between Shiites and Sunnis, Muslims and Christians, Kurds, Turkmen or Yazidis.
Was not able to overcome this backwardness in Iraq and a few years of the reign of Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, who was a kind of exception. Being in power he turned for help to specialists and scientists, trying to improve the living conditions of citizens and to preserve all that is good and Holy since the days of the monarchy. On top of these achievements was the system of education with its universities, which had low autonomy even during the reign of Saddam Hussein. But the period of al-Bakr, in spite of all his efforts, was too short. You could even say that himself al-Bakr was not more than any other officer, have logic. He grew up in the city and sought to instill a new culture in which there is not the humiliation of others. These few years has not been enough to say that Iraq was done with the days of the military regime and one-party rule with Nazi ideology… but it was a real attempt to create a new system based on the ideas of the civilized world, with the holding of free parliamentary elections, similar to what happened in Syria in the period from 1961 to 1963 after its secession from the UAR.
All that can be said is the fact that Iraq ended in 1958, while Syria ended in 1963. To restore normal life in both countries is not possible, because society is divided. As for Syria, the defeat of 1967 (the defeat in the six day war with Israel — approx. TRANS.) were admitted under the flags of Baath. When Syria was forced to withdraw from the Golan heights to Israel in exchange for the fact that a certain group of people were able to keep the backward mode. In fact, Israel has assumed defense of the regime, guaranteeing him control over the Golan heights, thus attempting to protect itself. Fifty years later, the Golan heights still not returned, the West Bank and East Jerusalem remain under Israeli control.
After the appearance on the political scene of Hafez al-Assad in November 1970, the government moved to the Alawite, and then formed a kind of nepotism in which not all understood the interest of Hafez al-Assad to the rural population in domestic politics and the disregard for the inhabitants of large cities, while Bashar al-Assad succeeded his father in 2000.
Live and be surprised. However, what we are witnessing these days is the echoes of a history not only of Iraq and Syria. This close tangle of intertwining stories of many countries in the Middle East.
Who would have thought that Iran would become the first player in Iraq and begin the process of ideological purification of the state from ISIS and various armed groups? Who would believe that for Lebanon the day will come when he will be unable to elect a President without the green light from Iran and Hezbollah enter the war which the Syrian regime is waging against its own people? And who would have guessed that Syria will now be under the authority of four of the colonizers — the Iranian, Russian, Turkish and Israeli?