Corrections/Clarifications: 0:27 The reasons mentioned in the video are true, but intercommunal violence on Cyprus also played a big role in Turkey's motivation for invading the island. And it's also why some Turks see the invasion as justified regardless of what their governments motivations were. There was violence on both sides, but since Turks were the minority they were victim to more violence and more of them were displaced. Below are some exact numbers for clarity. In 1963 on the day known as Bloody Christmas roughly 364 Turkish Cypriots and 174 Greek Cypriots were killed. Approximately 25,000 Turkish Cypriots were forced to flee their villages and were displaced into enclaves. Around 1,200 Armenian Cypriots and 500 Greek Cypriots were also displaced.
@Antonakis Antonevris Thank you for your one sided and twisted 'facts', completely blaming anyone but the Greek speaking* community for the island's travails. Attitudes like yours are why Cyprus has still not reunified. *inconvenient truth - DNA testing shows the island's inhabitants to be of Turkic descent - the difference in the communities is just cultural. They aren't Greek at all, just happen to speak it. Just thought I'd throw that in since you're such an arse. (in case he replies - just assume that I reply back with 'blah blah, yawn, really? yeah, whatevs - got any more of that propaganda?')
@Antonakis Antonevris I've already wasted enough time arguing this with other Greek people. Not going to make the same mistake again. Neither of us will change each other's opinion because we will not believe each other. I'm going to spend my time doing something productive instead.
@@pd4165 where did you find these DNA reports claiming that all were Turks Shows your ignorance ITS THE OPPOSITE ON DNA FINDINGS you mean that after 1581 all the greeks vanished without living any DNA trace and replaced by Turks What a fallacy you believe in
Another interesting example was the West Indies Federation. It was formed in 1958 out of former British colonies in the Caribbean under a similar model to how Canada was formed. However it splintered in 1962 due to disagreements over how power would have been distributed between the former colonies
Jamaica betrayed the Federation. Because they wanted the capital while the cultural center was in Trinidad. Jamaica and Trinidad made up the majority of the Federation's Economy. After Jamaica left the remaining states still tried to keep the Federation alive, but attitudes change in Trinidad as they would now be responsible for 80%+ of costs, and fears of mass migration. It broke down again into The West Indies Associated States. After that Trinidad & Tobago & Grenada. Antigua & Jamaica. But they all ended independent. Jamaica with a Monarchy and Trinidad a Republic.
@@TeamTwiistz : I heard differently. Jamaica was given only 30% of seats in Parliament, but almost 90% of debt & operating costs. When Jamaica left, the small islands transferred this burden to Trinidad & Tobago.
A balkan union could happen actually, but between 2 states with eachother but not the entire region itself. For example, a Greko-Albanian union actually couldv happend because there are cultural and historical ties with eachother unlike the Slavs and Romanians who do not have historical and cultural ties with them, well Romanians to a smaller extent do have some. The Albanian leaders and the native Albanians of Greece proposed this to the Greek state but they declined such offer, this was after the greek independence. There was also a union thought to be made of Yugoslavia and Albania post ww2 but as said in this video, Stalin didnt want a powerful Balkan state because the Balkans was becoming heavily industrialised post ww2 + with tourism it would make them a very strong power in europe also the fact most balkan leaders had beef with eachother at one point so they never happend. In my Opinion, Yugoslavia wouldv worked if it did not have Albanians and the N.Macedonian Bulgarians because the south slavs (excluding bulgarians) are very similar with eachother, infact they are the same people, but due to rising nationalism in 80s and 90s it broke up. To me, as i said before, the most realistic union aside from the union of the very identical south slavs, would be the Greko-Albanian union due to historical, traditional, cultural ties with one another, also being the only 2 last living paleo balkan people.
On interesting thing about the Intermarium is that even though it failed, it wasn't forgotten, and has since inspired a 12-state economic co-operation initiative called the Three Seas Initiative, or Trimarium in the same area since 2016
I think an interesting near-Union to look at might be the Romano-Bulgarian Union, which one might call something akin to a Balkan Federation-lite. The Main window of opportunity for this to happen was a bit after Bulgaria got it's Independence, when the original King was deposed and the anti-russian regent Stambolov was looking to make some gains in fighting off Russian influence, and considered Carol I with the idea to create a dual state where Carol would be the new King, this idea having the support of not only the UK and Germany, but for a little bit even Austria-Hungary surprisingly, but it wouldn't end up going through due to Bulgaria's vassal status to the ottoman empire. Though this has the problem of the Union having to deal with the horrible existence that was Carol II afterwards, so a earlier Union with Gheorghe G. Bibescu, a candidate supported by both french and Austrian politicians (the french supporting him unlike Carol because Bibescu was a naturalized french Citizen) would probably be the better way to go if you want the Union to survive into the modern day (Though apparently some do debate the regency coronation scenario might've somehow prevented ww1). Might be interesting to see the Bibescu's in control also since at the Time Romania was massively francophile, so he might get some decent support in Romania too afterwards and so a Union could be possible, which might result in an even more pro-french sentiment than irl. Overall the most interesting thing about this Union though would be that, if going with one of the earlier scenarios, the Union would happen right in the Middle of Romania's process of relatinization, and it might be interesting to see if with Time and by joining at such a period we could get a more latinized slavic language via Bulgarian if it ends up getting (likely half-heatedly) dragged along
Heard of it. No, don't think I'd replace the Bulgarian language which did so much for Slavic literacy with some derivative of Latin, sprinkled with some possibly Thracian words. Further, having seen what Romania did during the last century, I'm glad Bulgaria wasn't part of that government. I can't imagine what kind of simps some of our politicians were...
@@hydroverse6782 True! i mean, for the last century Romania was no longer on top 10 poorest countries in the EU so yeah..stick with your amazing slavic gov...it did a lot for you to be top 3 year after year...lmfao Joke aside, it's impossible for any of these "merges" to take place. The cultures are so different even for those who seem to be familiar (language, traditions etc) and just like in a marriage, both parts would need to compromise if not one part more than other and this will never happen...nor it should! We can support and help each other when needed and be proud in our different cultures/traditions at the same time.
Impossible to happen, it’s a miracle if Transylvania won’t be independent by the next 50 years cause of the bad governance of Bucharest and very different culture and mindset form the rest of Romania… let alone merging with Bulgarians
This channel is underrated. We gotta push this thing out on Reddit and other social media. Maybe consider making a #short under 30 seconds every week or two directing viewers too close to boost your views!
The final nail in the Balkan Federation was the Tito-Stalin split of 1947. Other proposals existed in tandem, just as Greater Yugoslavia which should have included Bulgaria - but would not do so following the Tito-Stalin split, and also non-Slavic Albania. Albanian leader Enver Hoxha reversed his decision to unite with Yugoslavia (it had been Yugoslav Partizans that funded the Albanian communist movement during WWII). The actions of Hoxha was a divisive move among Albanians and his measure was not universally embraced. Most notably, Hoxha's former ally Koci Xoxe continued to support Yugoslav integration and ended up being executed in 1949 for his stance. Likewise the move was the beginning of an inter-ethnic Albanian rivalry between the Republic of Albania and the Albanians of the former Yugoslavia, namely Kosovo where autonomy existed, and subsequent trash talk was exchanged between the political elites of Albania and Kosovo. The legacy remains today with the two communities still looking sideways at one another.
Maybe do if the Latin Union became a thing? -Not the hardest to imagine in an alt-history sense. France skews a little more right so decides to support Franco's faction along with Italy, leading to greater cooperation between the three states. Rope Portugal in there to remove some border gore and there ya go. -I can see Italy still trying to get Istria/the Dalmatian coast, but with the reputation of three other nations on the line not as keen for war given their states and the threat of Germany, perhaps the annexation of Albania and invasion of Greece just never happen? -Definitely would be antagonistic towards Britain and wary of Germany, so either a Berlin-Moscow axis happens as an alliance of convenience, Berlin-London through further appeasement or Germany just remains a regional player only ever expanding into the nordic countries, the Germanic alps, western Poland and Hungary?
Firstly, despite being an attempted restoration of the WRE, this would prompt the question of which country would dominate in the Latin Union. Whichever city between Paris, Madrid and Rome would be chosen gains a lot of prestige. Also, as this union changes the balance of powers in Europe, both Britain and Germany might try to court this union to side against the other. Edit: I could actually see Britain and Germany forming the Axis here as the former would see the Latin Union as a renewal of centuries-old rivalry with France. Ironically the London-Berlin Axis could form into the Germanic Union. Irish nationalists could approach the Latin Union for obvious reasons
0:00: Introduction 0:10: United Cyprus 2:30: Federation of Arab Republics 3:27: Arab Islamic Republic 4:07: INTERMARIUM 6:03: United Kingdom "Controlling" Malta 7:25: Balkan Federation 8:38: United States of Latin Africa 9:31: Outro 9:42: End Screen
You cannot say the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a faliure. It lasted for 250 years and was only destroyed by Russian/Austrian/Prussian invasion and annexation of the territory. It may very well still exist if not for the imperialism of it's neighbors.
The commonwealth would've never survived, long before they were annexed they suffered from huge internal strife because of different noble factions vying for power and many different incompetent kings like Augustus II. Collapse would've happened eventually even if the internal weakness didn't make annexation by foreign power easy.
@@quakeknight9680 What?! Hussars was not a Teutonic Knights or something and they didn't convert pagans, schismatics or heretics forcefully! They were soldiers of noble origin, and the Republic of Both Natons was multinational, although every nobleman, regardless of his ethnic origin, considered himself a Pole. Have u ever heard about Krzeczowski/Криче́вський a Polish nobleman and hussar captain of Ruthenian origin and Orthodox faith? He was one of the Cossack commanders during the Khmelnytsky Rebellion. He commanded the rebel forces in the northeastern region, but was crushed by Lithuanian hetman Janusz Radziwiłł (who was a Calvinist) U are so f*** ignorant...
Egypt and Syria were actually unified from 1958 to 1961 under the name "United Arab Republic", until Syria broke free. Egypt continued to be called by this name for another decade, although it was alone in the union.
Great video! You should take a look into the plans for the Turks and Caicos in the Caribbean to join Canada - it's a proposal that keeps on coming up over the years (from 1917 to the present day) and while it's never gone anywhere, Nova Scotia has formally invited the Turks and Caicos to join their province should they ever join Canada.
8:30 Correction. Tito's Balkan federation Idea didn't fail because Joseph Stalin opposed the idea itself, but rather because he didn't like that Tito was having these talks with Bulgarian and Albanian leaders without consulting the Soviet Union on the matter first. This would then lead to the Tito-Stalin split and Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Eastern block.
Coming from Albania, Enver Hoxha wouldn't like it that much. Maybe he liked it, but he was know to love Italian culture with a splash of athiesm and brutality.
This reminds me of the early iteration of what is now the Union for the Mediterranean. Nicolas Sarkozy was banking on the creation of a body similar to the EU, but far more focused on nations in the Mediterranean, with an eye for better cooperation with countries like Syria, Libya & Algeria. Germany, of course was not amused, & the meetings & the organization itself later morphed into an EU cooptation for working with Med. countries rather than a separate, EU-like body.
Hey Neatling. I was watching your hypothetical videos when I remembered the show Kings and the fictional nation of Gilboa. I was wondering if you had watched the show, too.
Got 2 in 1 at the first part, both Cypriot reunification and Union of Cyprus with Greece (Enosis). In fact, a pretty interesting fact is that Greece was promised to be ceded Cyprus for joining the First World War, but because it didn't do so immediately, the island was retained by the British. After the Greco Turkish war, the Treaty of Lausanne which specified the modern borders also included a clause that banned the Turkish Republic from having any rights on Cyprus. So yeah, with the invasion Turkey essentially broke the deal.
The Międzymorze is by all means still an ongoing plan, however it would be more of an union similar to the EU and the project is currently called ”The Three Seas Project”
As a Croatian, I'd like that, we are culturally almost identical, speak similar languages, have the same Christian values and a free regionalized trade would make us less dependent on global trade and make us more versatile in developing our industries (right now we are forced to strive for IT industry and high education because we can't make a name for ourselves with farming or wood industry on the global market). I also hope we reject the Euro that is about to be forced upon us so we can control the inflation and life standard. I think that the interest in such a partnership/union will arise in the next 2 years inevitably, but whether the democratic "majority" will support it is a different question. All our state owned industries have been sold to private foreign capitalists that sabotage them and neglect them, and now we are fully dependent on some rich bastard from China or US that will open up a new branch of their marketing or tech company in our capital while all other cities send their young people abroad because there is no work locally anymore. Our politicians and the EU deserve to be hung for crime of depopulating our country and destroying our economy. We actually had a stronger industry in the Yugoslavia which speaks a lot about global market globalism and privatization .
@@teetman322 I think Euro is better than Kuna and Złoty, because it depends on more than 1 country economy, so it is more stable. Also 1 currency in the EU would simplify trade by a lot.
@@qwertyuiop5530 The Three Seas project exist exactly because of EU and Euro as those countries that would become part of it wouldn’t benefit from EU and the Euro (something similar would happen to them that happened to Greece) and as the ”Three Seas” would be like EU, they would also have a shared currency that would be more stable than any other currency that the countries taking part has at the moment. The simplified trade wouldn’t be simple for them either which is another reason for this new kind of a union. So yes you have a valid point to an extent, however the point falls apart to lack of understanding of the reasons (why’s and how’s) of Three Seas.
@@zmicezgaming6368 emmm.... And why common curency of the three seas couldn't be Euro? I mean maybe some of the 3 seas countries are to week to use Euro, but then they are also too weak to use 3 seas curency. Dividing Europe is stupid.
@@qwertyuiop5530 That is the exact problem, if the currency is defined by the most powerful economically EU country, then you can't control the inflation specifically for your country. We would lose work and couldn't start up new businesses because most importantly amongst plethora of changes, our exports will not be affordable for our partners and that will ruin every industry we have left, only leaving us to work in service professions like tourism (to do who can and live by the sea) and IT or Economics (digital industry). The EU Central bank controls the intrest rates and we couldn't afford to take loans as much anymore (right now it's chaper for the bank to give us loans since the Euro is stronger than kuna, so we make more use of what is for them less money than for example if they loned the same amount to Germany). Kuna has never been unstable btw, it is consistent since we adopted it. There is a reason the Brits didn't use Euro and the Czechs have thriving industry because they kept the Crowns, also the reason why Greece got utterly demolished by adopting the Euro, it was the final blow to them.
My favourite What if is the Polish - Swedish union: Sigismund Vasa was King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, and succeded his father Johan III as King of Sweden and Grand Duke of Finland in the very last years of the 16th century. The union soon fell apart due to political manuevering from all sides. If Sigismund had managed to stabilize the union it would have been a major power able to match the Russian, Habsburg, and the Ottoman empires. The 30 years war would have looked very different!
I agree - but it's not easy... i know my home country Poland wants something like that but for example Czechia prefers union with Germany,.. also some countries have conflicts and disagreements which make it impossible to do.. its disappointing because we are slavic people and it seems like we do want to work together, but nothing is coming out of it
another example of the pan-arabism movements was the Maghreb Union this was basically a union between north african countries like Algeria Morroco tunisia and muritania aimed for closer economic ties then full political union created in 1989 but was unfortunately discontinued due to the tensions between the countries (algeria and morroco) as well as the western sahara movement maybe one day :(
First the Serbo-Croats need to stop being 4 seperate countries and the Bulgarians 2 seperate, and then we might see more movment towords that direction.
Iraq and Syria planned to unite in 1979 but Saddam Hussein came to power that year and the proposed union fell apart then they severed diplomatic relations with each other and closed their border
We could hook up the Union of Latin Africa up to a water boiler and turbine and generate endless amounts of energy for the world with its instability/decay.
Balkan Union was not a thing of the late 19th century. It started as early as the late 18th century, right after the French Revolution. A Greek Jakobin, Rigas Ferraios, envisioned a Balkan Union that would crush the Ottoman "tyrrany" as he called it and all Balkanic people would come together in one state.
But you forget the part where religion plays an important role in the state formation and in the lives of its citizens. States like Greece were created with strong orthodox-dominated religious bases. The genocides committed against Muslims in Greece as well as in Serbia cannot be forgotten. For example, a recent case in Montenegro where Montenegrin Orthodox citizens protested against the influence of the Serbian Orthodox Church. There was almost a civil war between the Montenegrins and the Serb community in Montenegro. Not forgetting the earlier wars in Bosnia, Croatia, etc. I am of the opinion that if the Slavic family does not get along with each other, imagine creating a common state with the Albanians of Kosovo and Albania. Unimaginable.
@@ermirdestani My comment had nothing to do with what you mention in your comment. I understand your concerns, however what I said was just the fact that it was proposed, not whether it would and could happen or not. And I made that comment because the video mentioned that Balkan Union was a 19th century idea, which is false.
Evan Gr...in the 18th century only the Albanians had independent states and an ethnic group ( Arnaut Arvanites Arbanasi Arberesh ect...the other Balkan populations were only Chriastians and Muslims from Rumelia without ethnic identity
@@lagjescuni5482 This is a completely different issue I am not willing to participate in. I am just going to say that "nations" in a political way were only created very recently, irregardless of national groups existing before, even since antiquity. National Groups only quite recently got an idea that they shall have their own state, beginning in France. Sometimes even these nations had to be "created" based on a state (Italy). And some of the groups you mention are part of different national integrations anyway (Italian, Greek etc).
@@user-zy4yw9uw6n Balkaners yes. It's Greeks who Would not be part of this union, as it doesnt have the balkan culture, social structure and mentality that you are talking about Balkan People on the contrary could have whatever union they wish
@@snowman9452 I lived in Gr for 15yrs. Similar to North Macedon, Serbia and esp Montenegrians. They def consume less alcohol than we as Serbs do but yeah pretty much the same culture. Italians and Spaniards on the other hand...very different. Not sure if you've travelled a bit, but yeah.
@@user-zy4yw9uw6n not sure how to explain it to you, but, being anywhere in peloponnese, Central Greece, Athens or the islands is NOTHING like being in Serbia, Northern macedonia or Bulgaria, and i know it since i visit all of them very regularly. From every aspect, from architecture to alcohol to loanwords to family styles to EVERYTHING, Greeks are VASTLY closer to italians and Spaniards than any Balkan nation. Being in monemvasia or nafplio, is easily like being somewhere in South italy, and being in Cyclades is easily like being in andalusia. But neither of them is ANYTHING like being in Serbia or Bulgaria etc. Greeks , especially in south Greece, built their traditional houses like other southern Europeans, nothing like Balkans, had nuclear families, not community families, drunk wine, not rakija (most of Greece dont even know what rakija is), yugoslav mentality is conservative and cold, Greeks are liberal and warm, like south Europeans, i could go on forever. If you lived in South Greece you would know the role of pasta in local cuisine. You would also know that cavapi is unknown to locals. You would also know that our accent sounds pretty similar to Spanish. Montenegro is SOMEWHAT more similar to Greece than the rest of Balkans are, and so is Dalmatia. Guess the reason: mediterranean influence and Venetian influence in Montenegro, not existing ANYWHERE in Balkans Otherwise, can you show me a single town or village in Serbia or Northern Macedonia looking ANYTHING like nafplio, katakolo, corfu syros etc? What does Corfu have in common with Ohrid? Bother also telling us what part Greece you lived in, and saw similarities that 99% of people DO NOT see, Greeks included? Because till now you have failed to give any example of how Greece could ever be any similar to Balkans. I rather only see you repeating "how similar Greece is to balkans" like a typical backward yugoslav
If that happens I would literally hope Transylvania gets its independence, we don’t wanna be part of that shuthole especially with countries we have nothing in common
it's interesting to think what the middle east would be like today if syria and iraq united back in the 1970's under a baathist controlled government, could be a superpower right now if no wars or anything there
I wondered if a US Inner 48 decided to regionalize the states to maybe 16 and the others alaska, hawaii, and other territories. Maybe Puerto Rico, Jamaica and Haiti could join as states. Maybe even Cuba, may not be a far fetched idea.
Inshallah there is more cooperation in the balkans, we need it. Ideally in a EU framework (a better EU not this mess) but even without that we still need to do it
@@diyandimitrov5625 We do need europe tho. We should be mates because we live next to eachother, but we also live next to Italy, Austria, Hungary. And trust me growing up in crisis Greece i know how bad the eu can be
When we will be able to create the African federation, the European federation and the Latin federation, we should also try to merge all this unions in the United Earth federation, and start to colonise other planets.
That would take a very long time lol The only way I see that happening is slowly corroding Earth's many cultural identities. Which would be extremely unnfortunate, but it would make Earth more cooperative, and humanity could advance much quicker. A world-wide alliance would need to be formed first, and then over time the union could become more and more solidified. Humanity would also need something to unite against. A lot of national identities are formed from unifying against an enemy. Whether it be a literal enemy, like aliens, a metaphysical enemy like certain ideologies, or a non-living enemy like Climate Change.
Earth will only be unified if there’s an external threat. Without competition we fall into stagnation. War is one of the fastest ways to increase innovation.
@@dr.manofculture1492 Thats blatantly untrue. Do you think its a coincidence that humanity has advanced exponentionally faster, the more we get connected? The easier communication is, the easier it is to get ideas out. If it is all under the same administration, then naturally communication and travel would be MUCH easier
1940 after the invasion of france, a merge of GB and France was discussed. 1918/1919 German-Austria wanted to join the German Empire, but that were forbidden by the winners of WW 1. Also GErman-Austria must change the name to Austria.
Things like the Balkan Union and the Intermarium failed because they would have required one state or nation dominating over the others (and with little to no ethnic tension as everyone else has to accept a secondary role), and the choice of the capital would inevitably dictate the power structure. I mean, Yugoslavia was pretty much Greater Serbia, for example. If the Intermarium were to still push through in the 21st Century (as a defense against both the EU globalists and Russia), the leading state will either have to be Poland, Hungary or Ukraine.
Funny thing about the balkan union mentioned is that back then it would have NEVER worked. First off - because both Bulgaria and Greece, prior to the Ottoman Empire were always the power players in the region, even after they regained independence both were still militarily more powerful than the serbians and croats (the balkan and world wars made that pretty obvious), plus greeks are not of the slavic group, so that's another reason for them. Also about Romania - they would have not agreed to that idea either, as they had at that pointed abandoned their slavic identity and reformed it into the romanized latin identity that they have even now. And Bulgaria would have never agreed due to the constant friction with Serbia. Nowadays we kinda have that happening though. With the European Union and all the other unions we have now, we're pretty much closer than ever throughout our history. Still separate entities though.
lol bullshit, Bulgaria lost the war with Serbia in 1913 and had to give up it‘s claims on northern Macedonia up till today. That‘s not a power house. And talking about the world wars. In the First World War it needed three attempts and a unified German-austro-Hungarian-Bulgarian attack in 1916 to make the Serbian army retreat. In ww2 Bulgaria literally just waited that hitler destroyed Yugoslavia and then got some parts of it without even having to fight for. And then in the end of both world wars Bulgaria stood on the loser side, whereas Serbia on the winner side. Check your history
@@motmi2356 first off check your history facts right, 2nd balkan war was yes lost by Bulgaria, but not due to Greece or Serbia, it was because of Romania and Turkey. 2nd off Bulgaria had no reason in either world war to side with the winning side as there was nothing to be gained. This is why Bulgaria tried to maintain neutrality but it couldn't due to Nazi pressure, it was " join us or be invaded " not Bulgaria waiting for you to get destroyed, the fuck are you talkin about xD. There were two parties during WW2 which could not come to a conclusion if they should join the AXIS or ALLIES, which was the reason Bulgaria remained neutral for so long, until Germany came knocking on the border. Also dumbass, Bulgaria is the only losing country of WW2 that gained territory. Fk off now. :)
Sinn Féin wants to Unify NI with the Republic (always have since the death of Collins, but now they're pushing for it again). When we hold no right or claims to NI. Only British parliament can offer NI independence, and during that, either offer full independence, or organise a referendum in NI and us to hold one in unison. Whether we and NI want unification. The problem is NI is only successful because the UK pays for it. Ireland already has financial issues in public sectors (mainly health and housing) and is only just at a point you could claim as "recovering". But that's since paused over Covid. Ie. We can't afford NI because it'll cripple the Republic for years. Plus, while I have no problem with if the people want to join us, I know well then end up with Unionists... Again. It makes no sence for Hibernian unification, and likely never will in my lifetime.
Fascinating stuff and I certainly bow to your knowledge as I grew up in North London and my history education in the eighties at school did not mention The Troubles once. But how do NI pop feel about a Brexit they didn’t want? And if there is a subsequent risk of border issues between EU and UK at this land border, could it be a catalyst for reunification if the NI pop want it as per The Good Friday Agreement? Or is it all about Eire saying “we know you want to join us? But we can’t afford you right now” I wonder if the UK would ever feel compelled to push NI on to Eire? Let’s just blame England for the worlds woes ;)
@@PHDiaz-vv7yo There's a theory that the United Kingdom would cease to exist in the event of Scottish independence. It's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland after all, not the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. If Great Britain ceases to be, so does the UK. In that event, I can well imagine the English leaping at the chance of being rid of NI, and forming a union with just Wales. And even Wales would be a maybe, judging by the mood in England these days. It would leave Ireland in the odd position of either going "Err..no thanks", or reluctantly being unified.
You might end up with a tricky situation then. The English are becoming increasingly disenchanted with the Union and asking "What's in it for us?", which is beginning to cause some worry for Union supporters in Scotland. If the English can't be bothered trying to keep Scotland sweet, I can't see them agreeing to fund Northern Ireland for much longer, especially as Scotland and Ulster have far closer ties than Ulster and England.
There was many ideas for United Balkan, all ideas are created by Serbia. First idea was after Balkan wars, but Austria-Hungary didn't want strong country on south again. Second idea was after WW1 when Germany annex Austria, Balkan countries saw a threat and Kingdom of Yugoslavia(Serbia) gave idea to other Balkan countries to unite, but United Kingdom wanted region to be weak. And third idea was after WW2 but USSR wanted region to be weak. Always some other power want to destroy federation that would be very prosperous and strong, there would be no official language, and everybody would be happy in Balkans that would be like good ending. USA wanted to destroy SFRY and they did, to destabilize region, they made conflict because of money, and Serbia see them as warmonger, they literally froze conflicts in Balkans, Kosovo, Macedonia, Bosnia and Hercegovina... The real reason why Serbia don't want to be in NATO is why they see that as colonialism, and that is literally truth.
@@teyrncousland7152 not just him but yeah. Obviously feraio's idea was not popular with the other greek intellectuals and revolutionaries nor with the populace
No mention of South Africa's 20th century attempts to integrate Namibia as a fifth province. Robustly rebuffed and blocked by the UN until Namibian independence in 1990.
Dark Green: serbo-Croats Light Green: Bulgarian Light Blue: Romanian Red: Turkish Yellow: Albanian Dark Blue: greek Dark: Aromanian (little dark spots in southern Albania.... northwestern grece)
Answer from Romania N O ! N O ! N O ! Maybe România, Italia Spania, Portugalia, Franța, Vatican, San Marino, Andorra, Rep. Moldova, Monaco, Belgia, Luxemburg ! Y E S !
You could have spoke about the Arab Kingdom agreed upon by British and The Heshemites. In revolting against the Ottomans the Arabs lawfully earned a united state including modern Syria, Hatay, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula with small coastal concessions on the Mediterranean and Persian Coasts. The King intended on creating a benevolent government and court filled with the educated Arabs of the time (Christians mostly)
turkey invaded cyprus because there was literally a military junta government that was genociding turks since 1964 and the first move was made in 1968 but was called back then while the prime minister was away turkish minister of armed forces called the invasion to save the turks living there
SwuXel Are you stupid? First of all, Cyprus had no military junta. The military junta was in Athens since 1967, while Cyprus was governed by Makarios. Second, of course, Turkey didn't invade to save the Turks. Turkey used the Turkish Cypriots (who since have mostly left as migrants to the UK, the majority now being Turks from the mainland) as a pretense to invade. "Even if no Turk was living on the island, Turkey would still invade" - Davutoglou.
@@niksan5670 It's an old "trick",somewhere far away there are these people who are our people and they're being murdered so we as same people gotta help those people blah blah blah...the exact bullshit started the Yugoslav War.
It was actualy the greeks who proposed this union of greeks,serbs and bulgars to make one balkan country.Althought the moldowallacian revolt failed and macedonia and threce never revolt, resulting to the unification failing.The prosposul of a united balcanks never came again since then
Malta should held a referendum to come back under Italian influence or total integration, we wouldn't reject u as the UK did. You're literally half Sicilian..
im sad that no one try to reform the roman empire again
2 года назад
Another attempt of an unification that not so many people know about, was the one between Romania and Hungary. There was a plan to make King Ferdinand I Hohenzollern of Romania wear the hungarian crown but the plan failed because of the fear of the romanian peasants from Transilvania that old nobles would get back their lands and rights fueled, probably by the liberals of Bratianu who were afraid that the magyars will be predominant in the politics. Horthy himself favoured this unification.
