Most painful territorial losses

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,745
SoCal
#51
If we want to draw a "higher order" analogy (which wasn't my actual intent) then, sure the "more than 100 years past expiration date" nature of Austria of 1909 (annexation crisis) and Byzantine Empire of Dushan's reign are "roughly" analogous.
Oh, I got it! A-H in 1914 was in a similar position to the Byzantines back in c.1300.
 
Dec 2011
4,723
Iowa USA
#52
Oh, I got it! A-H in 1914 was in a similar position to the Byzantines back in c.1300.

Evaluation of the record for the early 1300s is a lot more challenging than the amount effort needed (as an English only speaker-reader) to learn about the origins of the Balkan Wars and the July Crisis. So the analogy is admittedly "a stretch", however, I meant to say that Nationalist movements in Serbia had an emotional-near mystic symbol in Dushan.

If you have had the opportunity to read (younger) Robert Kaplan's "Balkan Ghosts" his speculation on the power of emotional symbols probably affected my perspective here.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,745
SoCal
#53
Evaluation of the record for the early 1300s is a lot more challenging than the amount effort needed (as an English only speaker-reader) to learn about the origins of the Balkan Wars and the July Crisis. So the analogy is admittedly "a stretch", however, I meant to say that Nationalist movements in Serbia had an emotional-near mystic symbol in Dushan.

If you have had the opportunity to read (younger) Robert Kaplan's "Balkan Ghosts" his speculation on the power of emotional symbols probably affected my perspective here.
I'll try getting access to that book. :)
 
Jun 2017
2,885
Connecticut
#54
Which territorial losses were arguably the most painful for the country that was losing territory to swallow?

Personally, I could think of:

-Danzig and the Polish Corridor: Germany whined and complained a lot about its loss of this territory even during the Weimar era--in fact, up to the point of Germany launching a years-long trade war against Poland: German–Polish customs war - Wikipedia
-Alsace-Lorraine: France felt that a part of its soul was ripped apart when it lost Alsace-Lorraine in 1871. This issue served as a perpetual poison in Franco-German relations up to WWI.
-The territories east of the Oder-Neisse Line: West Germany refused to recognize the Oder-Neisse border with Poland until 1970--and even that recognition was provisional and was only finalized in 1990 after German reunification.
-Vilnius and Lviv: Poland was unhappy about the loss of the Kresy in general (even though it was generously compensated with former German territory in the west), but the loss of Vilnius and Lviv might have been especially painful for Poland given that these cities had huge Polish populations before WWII.
-Algeria: France ultimately voted to let Algeria go by a huge margin (75%-25%, I believe), but it nevertheless previously fought a years-long war against the Algerian FLN in order to prevent Algeria's secession from France. Also, the pieds-noirs were especially hurt by France's decision to withdraw from Algeria--hence them resorting to terrorism near the end of the Algerian War and even trying to assassinate De Gaulle.
-Ukraine and Belarus: After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia didn't reconcile itself to the loss of Ukraine and Belarus for an extremely long time. For instance, it was still hoping for a reunion with both of these countries as late as early 2014.
-Kashmir: Not a territorial loss per se since Pakistan never actually controlled all of Kashmir, but Pakistan's failure to conquer all of Kashmir back in 1947 significantly poisoned Indo-Pakistani relations for the next seven decades.

Anyway, what other painful territorial losses were there throughout history? For the record, I want this thread to focus on recent history, but nevertheless please feel free to talk about history further back in time as well if it relates to this topic.
Yes France whined about Alsace Lorraine a lot. Kashmir is also a great answer. Hmm this is a very good question. A lot of territory countries should be upset over losing not so sure they are(Mexico and the Dutch in regards to certain US states:)Ireland wasn't independent when they lost Northern Ireland, the British in practice stole that land several centuries earlier way I see it. Hard to think of many. And the fact France fought so hard over Algeria makes me just extra mad about French racism. Like they literally begged for this, now they're complaining when Algerians see themselves as French!

Here's my other picks. Those two are on my list just not going to write about them when you did, don't want to get too close to that 10000 mark. Been hitting that too much lately:(

Constantinople. Now I know the Roman Empire ended in 1453 technically but the Orthodox Russians, Bulgars and other people with the Byzantine religious culture saw it more in a "we lost Constantinople" sort of thing and they tried very aggressively to get that land back all the way up to the fall of the Russian Empire.

Rome. The Pope was very mad over losing Rome and refused to recognize what had happened(referring to the institution not one person of course) for about another 60 years. That's pretty sore.

China got very mad over losing the province the Japanese had nabbed from Germany during WWI. The Allies just stabbed them the back there and I can see why they'd be upset.

Normandy? Don't think the wars between England and France had much to do with one province so much as ruling France generally but that and Calais since that lasted longer would up there just cause for there to be so much conflict over it lot of angst needed to had over losing it.

Switzerland and the Netherlands because the Hapsburgs/Spanish refused to acknowledge they'd lost the land for an incredibly long time after losing the land. Swiss practically won their independence in the 1300s, took until 1648 for that to get acknowledged. Compared to that the 80 years it took for the Dutch to get their independence acknowledged seems like nothing but that's pretty darn long. Can see why that was the Hapsburgs home and it would take a while before their descendants would be indifferent to refusing to acknowledge they'd lost it. Still families lost their original homes all the time and they didn't tend to hold on THAT LONG.

If we count the Stuarts as a country not a family they took a very long time to get over the fact they didn't rule England anymore. Had their own imaginary court in Paris with a fictitious title for nearly 100 years. And yeah I know the Stuart women stayed on the throne a little longer I meant the Catholic male line.

But yeah stretched for examples. I would put the Falklands but um that crisis is weird in that the territory objectively has no non symbolic value for either party and no one cared about it until the other side started caring about it. It's closer to Argentina and the concept the natives wanting the UK to rule when it has the population of a small village and was empty beforehand is ridicolous. On the other hand, it was empty beforehand, not like they displaced anyone. It's objectively a minor issue that people's reactions towards are irrationally fiery. So that's close.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,745
SoCal
#55
Yes France whined about Alsace Lorraine a lot. Kashmir is also a great answer. Hmm this is a very good question. A lot of territory countries should be upset over losing not so sure they are(Mexico and the Dutch in regards to certain US states:)Ireland wasn't independent when they lost Northern Ireland, the British in practice stole that land several centuries earlier way I see it. Hard to think of many. And the fact France fought so hard over Algeria makes me just extra mad about French racism. Like they literally begged for this, now they're complaining when Algerians see themselves as French!
I don't know just how much the Dutch cared about New Amsterdam. I was under the impression that they forgot about it pretty quickly. As for Mexico, Yeah, one would think that they would be severely pissed off, but I'm not completely sure considering that the lost territory had few people back then. If a territory isn't much than an abandoned wasteland to someone, should this person really shed a lot of tears over its loss? Mexicans nowadays do live in the Southwest en masse, but that was only after Americans made this region great and developed this region. :)

As for Ireland, Yeah, it's in the same boat as Kashmir. It strongly wanted Northern Ireland for decades, but it hadn't actually controlled Northern Ireland for centuries--and even then, I'm not sure that Ireland was actually a unified country several centuries ago.

As for Algeria, Yeah, it is quite sad that France aggressively fought to hold onto this territory, but then when the Algerian harkis wanted to move to France, France often refused to allow them to do this--thus causing the remaining harkis to often face brutal reprisals (including murder) back in Algeria. :( Basically, France wanted Algeria's land and resources but not the Algerian people themselves. :( Of course, a lot of Algerians did move to France later on--possibly because big business in France wanted more labor--but even this displeased and continues to displease a lot of French people even today. Personally, I would have let all of the harkis in (I'm generally wary about large-scale Muslim immigration--especially without strong selection--but the harkis certainly earned it) but then been much more selective about which other Algerians and North Africans I would have let in. Of course, I would have let the North African Jews in en masse.

Here's my other picks. Those two are on my list just not going to write about them when you did, don't want to get too close to that 1000 mark. Been hitting that too much lately:(
I thought that it was a 10,000 mark?

Constantinople. Now I know the Roman Empire ended in 1453 technically but the Orthodox Russians, Bulgars and other people with the Byzantine religious culture saw it more in a "we lost Constantinople" sort of thing and they tried very aggressively to get that land back all the way up to the fall of the Russian Empire.
Yep. Interestingly enough, though, Russia quickly gave up on this aim after the 1917 February Revolution because its socialists (not only the Bolsheviks) denounced it as an imperialist war aim. Ironically, the Bolsheviks themselves ended up becoming much larger imperialists later on.

Rome. The Pope was very mad over losing Rome and refused to recognize what had happened(referring to the institution not one person of course) for about another 60 years. That's pretty sore.
Yep.

China got very mad over losing the province the Japanese had nabbed from Germany during WWI. The Allies just stabbed them the back there and I can see why they'd be upset.
China was upset about its territorial losses in general, no? I mean, it lost ports to Germany, Britain, and possibly other countries as well and also ended up losing Outer Manchuria (to Russia), Mongolia, Kokang (to Burma), and the territories south of the MacMahon Line (to India).

Normandy? Don't think the wars between England and France had much to do with one province so much as ruling France generally but that and Calais since that lasted longer would up there just cause for there to be so much conflict over it lot of angst needed to had over losing it.
Yeah, you might be correct in regards to this. Also, Aquitaine, no?

Switzerland and the Netherlands because the Hapsburgs/Spanish refused to acknowledge they'd lost the land for an incredibly long time after losing the land. Swiss practically won their independence in the 1300s, took until 1648 for that to get acknowledged. Compared to that the 80 years it took for the Dutch to get their independence acknowledged seems like nothing but that's pretty darn long. Can see why that was the Hapsburgs home and it would take a while before their descendants would be indifferent to refusing to acknowledge they'd lost it. Still families lost their original homes all the time and they didn't tend to hold on THAT LONG.
Yep.

If we count the Stuarts as a country not a family they took a very long time to get over the fact they didn't rule England anymore. Had their own imaginary court in Paris with a fictitious title for nearly 100 years. And yeah I know the Stuart women stayed on the throne a little longer I meant the Catholic male line.
Yep.

Also, here's another government in exile that has lasted for 100 years:

Rada of the Belarusian Democratic Republic - Wikipedia

But yeah stretched for examples. I would put the Falklands but um that crisis is weird in that the territory objectively has no non symbolic value for either party and no one cared about it until the other side started caring about it. It's closer to Argentina and the concept the natives wanting the UK to rule when it has the population of a small village and was empty beforehand is ridicolous. On the other hand, it was empty beforehand, not like they displaced anyone. It's objectively a minor issue that people's reactions towards are irrationally fiery. So that's close.
Yeah, I mean, logistically, it would make more sense for the Falklands to become part of Argentina, but the same is also true in regards to Gibraltar and Spain and yet this isn't happening and probably not going to happen anytime soon. Thus, the Argentines should just get over it--especially considering that they severely ruined their image in Britain for a century or so as a result of their 1982 invasion of the Falklands. Stupid, stupid, stupid Argentina! :(
 
Oct 2012
621
#56
Also, interestingly enough, I think that Britain should have added Sinai to Palestine when it gave Egypt independence back in 1922. Egypt already has a lot of land and isn't making much use of the Sinai while both the Jews and the Arabs of Palestine could have really used that extra land in the Sinai for themselves.
The reason Britain gave Egypt independence in 1922 was to ease nationalist tensions and at the same time keep Egypt under British influence. Taking away Egyptian territory ? Maybe not that good idea.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,745
SoCal
#58
Maybe a Palestine-Jordan confederation or even federation after Palestinian independence is achieved would be a better solution to Gaza's overpopulation problem. As for Israel's overpopulation problem, well, more Israelis could do what I and my family did and emigrate from Israel to other countries. :) This will reinvigorate the global Jewish diaspora (though a more inclusive definition of "Who is a Jew?" would certainly help since the last halakhically Jewish person among my ancestors was my paternal grandfather). :)
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,745
SoCal
#59
-Kashmir: Not a territorial loss per se since Pakistan never actually controlled all of Kashmir, but Pakistan's failure to conquer all of Kashmir back in 1947 significantly poisoned Indo-Pakistani relations for the next seven decades.
FTR, I'm aware of Pakistan's loss of Bangladesh in 1971, but I don't think that Pakistan was as upset about losing Bangladesh itself as about the possibility of it getting further dismembered by India at some future point in time. Pakistan recognized Bangladesh's independence in 1974 (three years after the end of the war) and Pakistan obviously made no attempts to reacquire Bangladesh ever since--which would be virtually impossible in any case due to the extremely massive geographical separation between the two.

Interestingly enough, Bangladesh's independence allowed Punjabis to begin dominating Pakistan due to their sheer numbers.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
26,240
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#60
For Italy, after WW II, the loss of the historically Venetian Istria and Dalmatia was not easy to digest. Overall considering what happened to Italians in those lands [the tragedy of the "Foibe" and the exodus of the Italians to the Republic].

Anyway such a loss has been metabolized and today Italy is not going to invade Croatia and Slovenia ...
 

Similar History Discussions