Most painful territorial losses

Dec 2017
280
Regnum Teutonicum
#81
The danish loss of Sweden, when Sweden with the help of Lübeck became independent.

The loss of Normandy, first when the French lost it to the English and then when the English lost it to the French (except for a few little islands).
 
Sep 2012
9,017
India
#82
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.
It is good to note that you are frankly stating that ' Pakistan failed to conquer all of Kashmir ' thereby implying that Pakistan was an aggressor and had no business to try to own Kashmir. The ruler of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir had chosen to stay independent of Pakistan and India at the time of the bifurcation of and independence of British India. However, Pakistan Army regulars disguised as tribal people invaded Kashmir valley to conquer it. The ruler of Jammu & Kashmir abdicated and acceded his country to India after a written undertaking was reached with him by the Govt.of India. Indian Army landed large number of its soldiers on the Shrinagar airport just in time to beat back the invaders. However a large part of the northwest corner of the state was still under Pakistan occupation when the United Nations stipulated cease-fire came into operation. This loss of territory still hurts all of Indians. It also hurts people of the so called ' Azad Kashmir' or people of the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) as we call it, under oppressive occupation by Pakistan. What hurts more is that a chunk of it was thrown to the PRC by the Govt.of Pakistan . The PRC , not bothered about whose land it was, proceeded to construct a part of the highway it is building to link up its western areas with the Gwadar port of Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2016
1,127
Georgia
#83
The loss of Normandy, first when the French lost it to the English and then when the English lost it to the French (except for a few little islands).
Normandy wasn't really lost by the French. When it came to English possessions in France, English kings were still vassals of the French crown. They just fought against the crown, like any powerful feudal lord would and were monarchs of a different country.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,422
#84
The danish loss of Sweden, when Sweden with the help of Lübeck became independent.
The Nordic Union was the union of three kingdoms under one monarch. It wasn't just Bigger Denmark. Had the Union kings been able to hold Sweden it might have developed into something like that. Norway went that way at about the same time, being reduced effectively to a province of Denmark, as Sweden (with Finland) went off on its own.

But Denmark didn't "have" Sweden to lose in that way. Effectively as the Union king, with his powerbase in Denmark, tried to impose increased direct control by his own Danish-base administration, the power-groups in Sweden rebelled. What consistently was raised was a set of demands according to which the king would only be recognised IF he accepted to rule according to the national laws, not appoint outsiders, and generally honour all noble rights and privileges. The Union technically held from 1397 to 1523, 126 years, before it came to a formal separation in 1523. But of those 126 years Sweden was in open rebellion, or formally independent under its own separate king or chancellor, for 66 years, pretty much the entire period from 1448 onwards. From 1448 to 1523 Union king was either granted authority over Sweden, or able to exact it by force, for the sum total of 13 years out of 75 years.

1434-37, first Swedish rebellion agains the Union king.
1448-1457, first splintering of the Union, Sweden declared independent, Charles VIII king of Sweden. Kristian I elected king of Sweden 1457, on the promise to respect Swedish independence.
1463-64, rebellion in Sweden
1464-65, Charles VIII king Sweden
1466 Kristian again recognized as king of Sweden
1467-70, Charles VII king of Sweden again
1471-97 Sweden independent under the Chancellor Sten Sture Sr, while negotiating about the possibilities of accepting the Union king Hans, king of Denmark and Norway, on the basis of a document known as the "Kalmar Recess", listing 50 points that the Union king would have to adhere to in order to be electable as king of Sweden (effectively a document empowering the Swedish nobility against royal power, including the formal right to rebel). Hans was eventually elected king in 1497, with all the strings attached (lasts 1497-1502).
1502-09, Sweden again in rebellion, on the basis of that negotiated "right". Hans eventually recognized as king of Sweden again in 1509, in "principle".
1510-12, new rebellion.
1513, peace brokered, but king Hans then dies.
1513-17, Sweden supposed to recognize Hans successor as Union king, Christian of Denmark, also as king of Sweden, but keeps stalling, postponing all formal meetings on the subject.
1517-19, the Swedish representatives formally refuses to either elect Christian, or compensate him for the loss of the throne of Sweden. Sten Sture Jr Chancellor of Sweden, rebellion, and invasion by Christian to try to assert his claim, which through military victory is successful in the period 1520-21.
1521-23 rebellion led by Gustav Eriksson Wasa, from 1523 Gustav I of Sweden, final formal end of the Nordic Union.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,745
SoCal
#85
It is good to note that you are frankly stating that ' Pakistan failed to conquer all of Kashmir ' thereby implying that Pakistan was an aggressor and had no business to try to own Kashmir. The ruler of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir had chosen to stay independent of Pakistan and India at the time of the bifurcation of and independence of British India. However, Pakistan Army regulars disguised as tribal people invaded Kashmir valley to conquer it. The ruler of Jammu & Kashmir abdicated and acceded his country to India after a written undertaking was reached with him by the Govt.of India. Indian Army landed large number of its soldiers on the Shrinagar airport just in time to beat back the invaders. However a large part of the northwest corner of the state was still under Pakistan occupation when the United Nations stipulated cease-fire came into operation. This loss of territory still hurts all of Indians. It also hurts people of the so called ' Azad Kashmir' or people of the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) as we call it, under oppressive occupation by Pakistan. What hurts more is that a chunk of it was thrown to the PRC by the Govt.of Pakistan . The PRC , not bothered about whose land it was, proceeded to construct a part of the highway it is building to link up its western areas with the Gwadar port of Pakistan.
Yeah, my own thoughts on the Kashmir issue are that India should have liberated all of Kashmir from Pakistan in 1949 and then held a plebiscite there. Prematurely going to the UN over this issue was a huge mistake on India's part IMHO.

As a side note, though, why didn't India respect Junagadh's decision to join Pakistan? Was it because Junagadh's people were mostly pro-India? If so, isn't that an argument in favor of giving a voice to the people of Kashmir as well in determining their own destiny?
 
Sep 2012
9,017
India
#86
Yeah, my own thoughts on the Kashmir issue are that India should have liberated all of Kashmir from Pakistan in 1949 and then held a plebiscite there. Prematurely going to the UN over this issue was a huge mistake on India's part IMHO.

As a side note, though, why didn't India respect Junagadh's decision to join Pakistan? Was it because Junagadh's people were mostly pro-India? If so, isn't that an argument in favor of giving a voice to the people of Kashmir as well in determining their own destiny?
The then ruler of the state of Junagadh was a lunatic, plain and simple. He used to hold grand marriage parties for ' marriages ' between his dogs and bitches including ' honeymoon ' nights for the canine couples ! He fled to Pakistan with hundreds of his dogs and bitches but leaving his wives, children and cocumbines behind. Do you think any govt.could have taken this loony seriously ?
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,745
SoCal
#87
The then ruler of the state of Junagadh was a lunatic, plain and simple. He used to hold grand marriage parties for ' marriages ' between his dogs and bitches including ' honeymoon ' nights for the canine couples ! He fled to Pakistan with hundreds of his dogs and bitches but leaving his wives, children and cocumbines behind. Do you think any govt.could have taken this loony seriously ?
Apparently the Pakistani government did take him seriously. :(
 

Similar History Discussions