History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedExpansionist States of Today

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 91011
Author
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Status: Offline
Points: 1814
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 09:12
Originally posted by Southerneighbr Southerneighbr wrote:

  Plus about Epirus,Albania lost it even though it had majority population of the Chams.The rest is Greek bs to justify the annexation of Epirus.
 


During the 17th century there was a noticable migration of Epirotans towards Thessaly and south-western Macedonia (and some to Romania). I suggest you have a look on turkish records and greek letters and you will see why those people moved. Also sometimes you learn things from Albanians like for example what "cifliqar" refers to. Also, think again, which was the most favoured non-Turkish group (not ethnicity nor Jennitsari) during Ottoman rule. Just a hint, because i see you and neoptolemaios speak about enlightment.


Edited by Flipper - 31-Jul-2007 at 09:23


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Status: Offline
Points: 1921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 13:25
Originally posted by MarcoPolo MarcoPolo wrote:

 

I think, truly expansionist countries of the world:
 
Russia - Chechnya, Island dispute with Japan
 
Spain - Gibralter
 
Argentina - Falkland Island
 
India - Kashmir, Sikkim, Hyderabad, Junagadh & Munawer, Greater India etc.. border disputes with nearly all of its neighboors (Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, China)
 
China - mmm this might fall under a gray area as the issue of Taiwan is between Chinese Communist and Nationalist with the added complexities of 50 years of politics.
 
Israel - Golan Height, West Bank, Gaza Strip
 
 
 
I shall agree totally with the cases of China, Israel and India,for example, however; some of the rest, are rightful claims.
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2007 at 08:13
I agree with kapikulu, spain and argentina are more border disputes. but i would add Russia to his list. Not only Chechnya but that whole region 
Back to Top
The_Jackal_God View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 13-Dec-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 157
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The_Jackal_God Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 12:16
did anyone mention Canada and the Carribean?

it's not so much expansionism on Canada's part, as certain islands have entertained the idea of joining Canada, the Turk Islands for example.

I think such a move projects danger on the US, since Canada would have us surrounded, and be able to launch a 2-pronged invasion. God knows they've been eyeing Alaska for a long time.
Back to Top
konstantinius View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 762
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote konstantinius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 14:33
This is a joke, right?
" I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so."
Back to Top
The_Jackal_God View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 13-Dec-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 157
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The_Jackal_God Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 20:13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_Canadian_provinces_and_territories

Countries and territories that some have suggested should join Canada

[edit] Current or former British territories

  • Turks and Caicos Islands - A British overseas territory in the Caribbean. There is some support for it to join Canada, although the islands' small economy and Canada's involvement in Haiti has made this controversial.
  • Jamaica - In the late 19th century, there was some discussion of some form of political union between Canada and Jamaica.
  • Barbados - In 1884, the Barbados Agricultural Society sent a letter to Sir Francis Hincks requesting his private and public views on whether the Dominion of Canada would favourably entertain having the then colony of Barbados admitted as a member of the Canadian Confederation. Asked of Canada were the terms of the Canadian side to initiate discussions, and whether or not the island of Barbados could depend on the full influence of Canada in getting the change agreed to by Britain. Then in 1952 the Barbados Advocate newspaper polled several prominent Barbadian politicians, lawyers, businessmen, the Speaker of the Barbados House of Assembly and later as first President of the Senate, Sir Theodore Branker, Q.C. and found them to be in favour of immediate federation of Barbados along with the rest of the British Caribbean with complete Dominion Status within five years from the date of inauguration of the West Indies Federation with Canada.
  • Bermuda - In 1949 Henry Vassey, then Chairman of the Bermuda Trade Development Board, urged the House of Assembly of Bermuda to pursue a political union with Canada. Four Methodist church congregations in Bermuda are part of The United Church of Canada, forming Bermuda Presbytery of the United Church's Maritime Conference headquartered in Sackville, New Brunswick.
  • The West Indies Federation In a 1952 letter by T.G. Major, a Canadian Trade Commissioner in Trinidad and Tobago, it was stated to the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs that the respective leaders of the British Caribbean could not reach a clear consensus for the exact style of a Federal Union with Canada. During a Parliamentary Conference held in Ottawa, it was also noted though that the colony of British Honduras showed the most interest in a union with Canada exceeding that of the other British Caribbean colonies.

Canadian Prime Minister Robert Borden and his delegation to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 put pressure on British Prime Minister David Lloyd George to give most of the above territories to Canada as sub-dominions or League of Nations mandates, citing the concessions made to Billy Hughes' Australian delegation with regard to New Guinea and Nauru. Lloyd George eventually declined [4].

[edit] Other political entities

  • Alaska - Some Canadians and Alaskans have discussed the possibility of the state of Alaska seceding from the United States and joining Canada under an autonomy plan allowing for a U.S. sphere of influence. This is comparable to what some Quebec separatists have advocated for in the past (sovereignty-association, Quebec Autonomism). The issue has been discussed on various forums, such as the Alaska Independence Party forum, and has its own site, which claims Alaska as the "lost province." However, no formal movement in favor of this proposal exists, nor does any political party currently advocate it.
  • Cascadia - Proposals for the independent state of Cascadia often include parts of British Columbia in their boundaries

draw your own conclusions 

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4232
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 20:58
Yes, obviously its a joke.  LOL
 
 
Back to Top
HEROI View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jul-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 469
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HEROI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 12:23
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

 
 Also sometimes you learn things from Albanians like for example what "cifliqar" refers to. Also, think again, which was the most favoured non-Turkish group (not ethnicity nor Jennitsari) during Ottoman rule. Just a hint, because i see you and neoptolemaios speak about enlightment.
Ok give an explanation on that.The most interesting would be on which was the most favoured non-Turkish group.As far as i know Serbs,Bulgars and Greeks were the most favoured non-Turkish ethnic group,having made it so high up in the empire as to have Sultans of their origine.( Serbs and Greeks) ,it is ridicoulous that now Serbs and Greeks pretend to have been the most anti-Ottoman rule in the Balcans when their aristocracy always mixed with the Turkish,unlike the Albanians who did not.Greece and Serbia turned against Turkey at a time when the empire was ruined ,having exesive debts to the British and the French.On the other hand almost all the Albanians who made it as high as to be Pashas in the empire always turned against the Ottoman Rule,Ali pash Tepelena,and Mehmet Ali pasha in Egypt are the example.And the example of not so favoured policy towards Albanians was the crimes comited in the late 1870-s early 1880-s against the albanian populations,specially in the Kosova Vilajet ,on the war that the Turkish declared on the League of Prizren.It proved to be the de facto independence of all rural areas.
Me pune,me perpjekje.
Back to Top
02bburco View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 12-Mar-2008
Location: Southamtpon
Status: Offline
Points: 121
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 02bburco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 15:21
sorry to dig up and old threat but surely russia should added to this list after reccent event in georgia, they could end up dewarfing the countries listed here who it seems by inlarge have expanded only very minimally in reccent years.
 
moreover the reason behind this lack of expansion in the reccent year is the banding together of nations i.e. EU and NATO which act as a detterent against war when they hayday of empire making was going on war was looked at in a positive light. this is combined with the lack of development outside europe with incourage other countries to invade wereas today even the poorest countries had a creditable army, with serious wepaons which would make invasion incour huge humanitarian cost. all of this had stop expansionisation as a policy.   
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 2218
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2008 at 16:40
Russia was already on the list Tongue
Back to Top
Władysław Warnencz View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2008
Location: Sofia
Status: Offline
Points: 175
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Władysław Warnencz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2008 at 17:30
There is a big difference between countries that want to expand purely out of imperialistic ideas and ones that have rightful claims on some regions,due to ethnical or historical reasons.Many countries have been mentioned but it wasn't specified WHY those countries have such intentions.
Back to Top
kurt View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 358
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 06:35
Originally posted by Władysław Warnencz Władysław Warnencz wrote:

There is a big difference between countries that want to expand purely out of imperialistic ideas and ones that have rightful claims on some regions,due to ethnical or historical reasons.Many countries have been mentioned but it wasn't specified WHY those countries have such intentions.
 
Nation A ruled territory C 1000 years ago. Nation B ruled territory C 500 years ago. Both claim ownership of territory C today. Who is the rightful owner?
Karadenizli
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4232
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 16:06

We are straying from the geopolitical aspects here once again.

Whether states are "expansionist" or are attempting, without control, to influence other geographies to their own advantage can be argued ad nauseum.  How do these variations on a theme affect the broader aspects of geoplitical landscapes (its geographical after all)?
 
How about:
 
1)  Influence and leverage over states in critical geographies.
 
2)  Positioning, with or without military assets, along cultural/political "fault lines" and at "flash points."
 
3)  Perceptions of physical security and of the protection of economic and commercial interests.
 
Isn't there a lot more here than who ruled whom, and where, 1000 years ago and who claims them now?  I think there is.
 
 
Back to Top
Władysław Warnencz View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2008
Location: Sofia
Status: Offline
Points: 175
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Władysław Warnencz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 16:44
Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

Originally posted by Władysław Warnencz Władysław Warnencz wrote:

There is a big difference between countries that want to expand purely out of imperialistic ideas and ones that have rightful claims on some regions,due to ethnical or historical reasons.Many countries have been mentioned but it wasn't specified WHY those countries have such intentions.
 
Nation A ruled territory C 1000 years ago. Nation B ruled territory C 500 years ago. Both claim ownership of territory C today. Who is the rightful owner?
 
 
The one that inhabits it today,has contributed it culturally the most AND has inhabitted it for a few centuries already.For example,european colonists in Australia couldn't say the land is only theirs a few centuries ago,because they were there for just a few decades.Nowadays however they have lived there for many generations already,BUT have also contributed and developed the land more than the aborigens.So they should have rightful claim on the land,because the aborigens simply lived there more than the europeans but didn't create a developed state as todays Australia.A land is yours not when you simply live on it,but when you also create a civilization on it,which contributes to whole humanity somehow.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 91011
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.