@@tada-kun982 then I guess we can say that England was never occupied, just conquered over and over again from the time of Caesar to the Norman invasion. Doesn’t sound much better. Do you suppose that the invasion by the Great Heathen Army could be considered an occupation?
Icelanders dont share a common ancestry with the danish, we share ansestry mostly with norwegians and some brits and irish but very little with the danish. I belive denmark got control over Iceland after the unified kingdom of Norway-Denmark got split up, icelanders being desendants of Norse men mainly from norway had been under a norwegian king before that. Yes it was an occupation and a bad one at that with a danish trading monopoly and bad treatment. Greenland and Faroes, declare your independance !!!
he missed one after john reneged on magna charta the barons invited the french kings son to take the throne which he did with a french force for 2 years until 1218 then when john died we kicked out the french to crown johns son
Not anymore. They begged to be part of the S.U. but they were rejected many times and china took a giant part of the Mongol people and made it into a province
@øranuto husband I know about Russian principalities. If you're gonna say that then you have to say that it wasn't Turkey neither, it was Anatolian beyliks. My comment was just a meme, and I recommend learning about it.
Technically, Russia was occupied by Poland for a very short while in the 1610s. They intervened in the dynastic crisis and put Wladyslaw as the Czar. He got deposed almost immediately, but that techncially still counts as an occupation.
No. If we're only taking in account that countries must be completely under another country's rule, then this doesn't count, as Poland only occupied a portion of Russia, which included Moscow, but did not occupy the entire country.
@@Пальцерезка The capitol was under polish controll, the Tzar was a polish prince, appointed by the boiars by the way, and the previous Tzar paid homage to the polish Sejm. Also polish forces controlled key cities like Smolensk, Czernihov, and polish shock-cavalry made it even up to Archangyelsk.
@@Someone-lr6gu But Poland controlled the key russian lands, including the capitol and the King (2 previous russian tzars were also polish puppets) and even russia didn't controll... well Russia. At that time most of its territory were empty steps with occasional nomads roaming arround. Poland took controll over the russian heartland, like Smolensk, Czernihov, and polish forces even went as far as Archangyelsk. If this case can't be concidered as an occupation, then the case with the occupation of spain and portugal by napoleon also cannot be counted in. Napoleon also didn't take controll over the whole of spain, the new ruler of spain appointed by napoleon didn't have any public support, and the previous king didn't pay homage to napoleon (in the case of portugal the king was still there, just in exile). And yes - napoleon had controll over the majority of the territorry, but in the case of russia - the commonwealth had controll over the key territories, like Smolensk, baltic territories, czernihov, and polish cossacks and polish shock-cavalry were reaking havick deep in the russian mainland, while the capitol was under polish controll, and in the case of russia - you can't realistlicly take controll over all of it. Even Russia itself didn't have much controll over it at that time. Those were mostly empty step lands, with the occasional nomad tribe roaming arround. Poland controlled the key russian western lands, where the vast majority of the population lived.
@@Пальцерезка Between 1610-1612 Russia was under Commonwealth control and Władysław was offer to became a Czar but he refused to convert to ortodox. Beside Poland have emerging war with Ottomas so they pulled off whole army from east to the south.
I like how your pfp is napolean who is french , you speak english in your video and also you are Portuguese which makes you a complete western European lol
The Romanians saw the Red army as the help of the Romanian army, and not as a liberating/occupation army, because all Romania's institutions worked at that time and the authorities of the kingdom kept the situation under control. But, when the Red Army started to marche on the boulevards of Bucharest, and the national authorities were left without any weapons, Romanians felt intimidated. The communist government was established in March 1945, under pressure from the red army, because since the end of August 1944 Romania had a democratic government which was a tragedy for the Soviets. Also, the Communists had a big meeting in Bucharest with many peasants, some of the peasants were shot by the Soviet snippers, but the Communists leaders blamed the traditional parties, making propaganda. An anti-communist meeting was held in November 1945, because of the Royal Strike, the youths sang the Royal anthem in front of the government building, but they were oppressed, by the Soviet armored vehicles (but one of them was overturned, because of the fightings which took place) And the general elections from November 1946 were falsified, by a 4 days delay, making The Democratic Parties Block (Communists) the winners. One year and a month later, Romania became People's Republic. And Romania was almost invaded because, it criticized the Invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, The Soviets put tanks all over the border with Romania. It's much better being in NATO
@@antejl7925 no we are not under usa, they are simply our allies and are stationary here and we appreciate it, they have no influence on us other than cultural which is also a pretty cool thing
Slovakia "occupied" by the Czech Republic until 1993? Lol. It was a peacefully dissolved federation of two very close nations with almost the same language and culture who joined together in 1918 to win independence upon Austria-Hungary and share awesome relations until today. We are like brothers between CZ and SK. Dozens of thousands Slovaks study in Czech Republic on our universities for free and its usually ths first country where we expand our companies/enterpreneurship.
I do not understand the Slovakia 1993 example. We were in a federation with Czechia. The split was bilateral move by both governments. You may as well assume that Czechia was occupied by Slovakia and also gained independence in 1993. Also as an example during 1968 but also after both heads of government (Alexander Dubcek and Gustav Husak) were Slovaks. Federation is not occupation.
I always viewed it in simple terms as two friends uniting because of external problems and when those problems lessened they parted as friends. This may be simplistic as I have nothing but a general impression and no local knowledge.
Czechs took advantage of you for their goals after WW1 so that they have a weak majority in the new state (without you it would have been 46%) and re-claim German populated areas. Note the difference, in their case the "ancient borders" were that mattered while the motto for dissolving the Empire was "free all nations". Bit of a controversy here. But they somehow had to sell it and came up with the idea of Czechoslovakia (which was technically rather Czecho-Germania). They made you think you were equal but in fact as soon as they could they got rid of you. That's my point of view of course and it wasn't that so bad for you, after all.
@@arpad2188 Actually None of it is true. Czechoslovakia came into existence because two very close nations were too weak after Austria-Hungary's collapse and that is why they decided to coexist as one country. This is why Czechoslovakia even existed in the first place. When it comes to the "ridding of" Slovakia. Both countries wanted to be independent, actually the truth is that the Slovaks wanted to be separated from Czechoslovakia even more than the Czechs had ever wanted. So this is how it was. And it is not my point of view, but the reality that happened.
@@arpad2188 Gosh, who are you? You are talking nonsense. Czechs and Slovaks have always been very close to each other - culturally, language-wise, history- wise etc. We love each other dearly. No one took advantage of the other one. Both parties decided peacefully to form one state (1918 Czechoslovakia) and also both countries decided peacefully and mutually to go separate ways ("Velvet divorce") in 1993 (Czechia; Slovakia). We are very fond of each other to this day. Actually, other countries could learn from Czechs and Slovaks how to split in a non-violent way with respect to each other. As for the "Czech-Germany", that's another nonsense of yours. Czech borders with Germany are ancient (at least 1000 years old). Czech kings invated Germans to settle in our scarcely populated border areas. They lived there with Czechs more or less peacufully (marying each other, speaking dialect based on both languages). Hitler just took advantage of German culture present there and claimed the area as belonging to Germany (same with Austria in 1938 when he annexed Austria). What he really wanted was just highly industrialized areas where Germans AND Czechs lived (often Czechs were majority there) for his war effort.
It happened in the Seven Years War too, during the subsidiary conflict called the 'Fantastic War' when a small Anglo-Portuguese allied army held off and outmanoeuvred a much larger Franco-Spanish force. Most casualties in that overlooked campaign were to disease, with this ravaging the Franco-Spanish army in the field. The majority of fighting was small scale but the fact the British reinforced Portugal against France and Spain shows that the Napoleonic Wars weren't the only time the British went in to help keep Lisbon in Portuguese hands.
Historically false even thou I put a like on your video. At times of the revolutionary movements and ridings Europe was having regular big wars. Regular Europe has very few decades in fine peace while the Balkans being more active.
@@antejl7925 Of course it completely justifies russian invasions and gives them right to occupy anything they want, right? I mean, let's just presume everything you said was actually true and not a putin's propaganda about Crimean so called "referendum" that was held under the thorough oversight of some very gentle green people of unknown origin armed with the latest russian military equipment. They would make sure Putin gets all the numbers he wants even if not a single person ever showed up to vote. Also, Ukrainian Constitution has a paragraph that says that such referendum must be nation-wide and can't be regional. And Russian Constitution doesn't have the mechanism for republics or regions to leave the federation at all. If you ever open your mouth with an intention to say something about leaving the mother Russia you get to penal settlement for 20 years faster then you can finish the sentence, if you are lucky and famous. If not, you gonna get killed and called a terrorist, like hundreds if not thoursands of Chechen and Dagestan nationalists over the last 20 years. So yeah, Ukraine being unitary state by the Constitution is actually more of a federation than Russia which is a federation only by the name.
@UCmxPo1SZzk1zrLL3BWIwE-w so you sitting wherever on Balkans you are and telling me there was a fascist coup in MY country? Sure you can see it much better through putin's tv then someone actually living here. Oh, and you just literally said some random country that has nothing to do with your situation must be bombed in response to whatever happened on Balkans? What the fuck is wrong with your head?
@@andrew55944 Well the SNP are thick as fuck because the unification of England and Scotland was mutually decided by both parliaments who then moved the new UK Parliament to Westminster. The only countries that were forced into the UK was Wales and Ireland (Wales because it was annexed by England and Ireland because the protestant majority parliament pushed through the unification bill, which the people didn't really want) The English have a stronger argument of occupation than the Scots in this case as the Scottish Monarch became the King of England and then later on the two nations United to make the UK - a Scottish King, a mutual unification of parliament - England doesn't control the UK, contrary to what the SNP like to pretend - this is why devolution was a mistake, it created a space for these extreme parties who act like we're all separate countries and England invaded them or forced them into the UK - the truth of it is, the United Kingdom is one country and it should have one parliament with equal representation for all nations, elected MP's alone should decide what happens in their own constituencies and the Prime Minister is the head of one united Govt (that's the way it used to work before devolution)
Nobody’s doing the timestamps so imma do it 1:48 Portugal 2:57 Spain 3:29 Switzerland 4:11 Turkey 5:47 Russia 6:54 Sweden 7:50 Bulgaria 8:26 Finland 9:09 Ireland 10:20 France and the Benelux 10:48 Denmark and Norway 11:16 Greece, Serbia, and Albania 11:33 Germany, Italy, and Austria 11:31 Iceland 12:16 Poland 12:33 Baltics, Belarus, and Ukraine 12:41 Hungary and Romania 13:04 Czechia 13:23 Slovakia 13:41 Most former Yugoslav republics 13:48 Serbia and Montenegro 14:10 Kosovo 14:18 UK
UK not England! The UK has never been occupied, England was not even a thing when the Danes invaded, it was their invasion that was the catalyst for creating a United England, and the Norman's invading was technically just a family squabble!
About Iceland: They became de facto independent in 1918 with a home government, however, they formally remained in a personal union with Denmark until 1944, with the Danish king as the official head of state (like f.e. the Irish Free State, or present day Commonwealth states like Canada and Australia). In 1944 the Republic of Iceland was declared. Moreover, Iceland was under Allied occupation during World War II.
The Czechs never occupied Slovakia. Even when they were Czechoslovakia they could have been considered two different countries in one. The separation in two countries was the natural thing to have occurred
I knew you where Portuguese how 1 your accent 2 in almost EVERY video you talk about them 3 in the first minute of the video you said our continent especially number 2 Edit: wow never had this many likes
Well, may seems too patriotic but Portugal it's a small country with barely 10M population and I think because of this few people on the world give the actual importance of the big achievements that Portugal did on history. Who will tell the stories of the Portuguese but themselves? Carry on, General Knowledge! Força Caralho! 🇵🇹 💪
@@rodrigojds The Czech and the Slovaks separated peacefully. Their countries were established and merged after WWI, and then reestablished in their merged state after WWII. Jugoslavia on the other hand, while existing after WWI and after WWII to had a quarrelsome divorce to say the least.
It’s hard to pinpoint an exact year when Sweden was founded, it’s a matter of how you define a country. The first national law came with king Magnus Eriksson in 1350, before that you could argue that Sweden was just a union of more or less independent regions. From 1397 to 1523, Sweden was a part of the Kalmar Union, with Denmark and Norway. Denmark invaded Sweden in 1520 and occupied the country until 1523, so 1523 is still a correct date for when the last occupation ended.
@@calumcain2355 Normans were French i.e. from Normandy. The French Normans brought their culture i.e. language, cuisine, love for aesthetics/art to England. This is why the English language today is more than 30% French lexicon. Even words like “Joy” from the French word Joi so there some academics linguistic that say the French language has as much as 35% influence on the English language, slightly more than Latin. Just cause England hates the French doesn’t erase the historical fact that england was once a colony of French people. Comprendre??
As for the Slovakian case. It was embraced by Slovakian politicians of the time as to end the Hungarian rule. In the 1993 two political rivals couldn't settle their differences and decided to split. There was no referendum at all. Just a politicians choice. I as a half Czech half Slovakian don't consider it to be an occupation. Thanks for the content!
Duchy of Milan: Lol, don’t pretend you were always like that. Remember our Battles over the City of Bellinzona and the entire Lombardy! Burgundian Empire: Exactly. Most Serene Republic of Venice: Lol, I’m the reason you ended up like that. France: It’s thanks to me that you have one of your cantons! Also, I kicked you twice. Holy Roman Empire: I mean... you’re literally my son and you betrayed me! Germany: I wanted to invade you but I was too busy in Russia 😕
Forgotten Cyprus & Malta: We are also countries in Europe, in eurozone even. Do you have to be occupied by Germans or French to get a mention around here?
wouldn't Iceland's freedom be earned not from Denmark but from the British occupation? the UK went and occupied Iceland in order to increase the air cover range for the convoys and reduce the mid-Atlantic gap in the anti-sub efforts. The occupation shifted hands between the British, the Canadians, and the Americans and ended in 1944/45. The occupation was a bit strange though. Iceland's government remained for the most part untouched, but the island was turned into an allied base of operation for the duration of the war...
I think it can still be considered an occupation in every sense of the word, because the Allies essentialy used whatever facilities they needed regardless of the Icelandic government's protests. Sure, they had elections and a government that decided upon actions independent of being told to by the Allies, but those decsions were ignored or tossed aside if the Allies didn't like them. Iceland was essentially powerless to stop the Allies doing what they wanted/needed to in their country and while the occupation wasn't nearly as bloody (some alleged rapes were about the only major attack by occupying troops on the locals) as almost every other occupation on the list, it certainly was an occupation like any of the others
Czechoslovakia was only created, because they were afraid of Hungary reclaiming Slovakia, so they didn't want to create a smaller country than Hungary. It was an artificial creation from the beginning.
@@SirGalahard This is not so simple. Czechoslovakia was created in 1918 after WW1. Slovak an czech language is so close that people understand each other without learning the other language. So the fathers of Czechoslovakia declared the Czechs and Slovaks as one nation just to support the idea of a state with one-nation majority. There were 5 milion Czechs, 3 milion Slovaks, 3 milion Germans, 0.5 milion Hungarians and some Ruthenians, Polish, Jews etc. Slovaks had full citizenship from the begining. In 1945 practicaly all germans were expelled from Czechoslovalia. The "Zakarpatska Ukrajina" (behind Karpaty mountains Ukraine) region was anected by USSR in 1945 so most Ruthenians also left Czechoslovakia. In 1969 Czechoslovakia turned into 2-state federation. In 1992 Slovak state election was won by a party which had "split of Czechoslovakia" in their programme. But it cannot be cinsidered as invasion at all. Actualy if we speak about the end of occupation, it is exactly 30 years the last Soviet soldier left Czechoslovakia.
@@pletiplot I always thought that the Czechia-Slovakia division was so chill. Talks of nations breaking apart are usually full of tension; it seemed as if the Slovaks said, "Y'know, we'd like to go it alone." And the Czechs were, "Yeah, okay. Good luck." Maybe there was more drama to it, I don't know.
@@tygrkhat4087 Actually it was like you say. There was no fight, nobody was armed, no shooting, nothing. But some tensions were there before the split like "We like to have a hyphen in the name "Česko-slovenská federativní republika" and later it changed to "Česká a slovenská federativní republika" (the lower case at "slovenská" is ok, the Czech and Slovak languages do not give upper case at adjectives, even the original noun is a name). Later there were tensions "you kept more of ... then you should keep" (usually everything was split 2:1 since Czech republic has twice as much population as Slovakia). And Slovaks told to Czech republic "Keeping the federal flag is against the agreement." (which actually was, the agreement was that no side can adopt a federal attribute as its own). I don't know how it was cleared finally. There was a regular border between Czech republic and Slovakia between 1993-2004, but when both joined EU, borers are open again. However these was mostly topic for the politicians, the normal people liked each other and still like, many Slovak people work in Czech republic and vice versa.
@@SirGalahard As A Slovak whose father resisted Magyarization in the early 20th century. I must say you don't know what you're talking about. Masaryk the father of Czechoslovakia was the son of a Slovak father & Moravian Mother. Uniting the brother nations into one successful state was always his mission. The kingdom of Hungary as part of a dual Monarchy on the other hand was a completely artificial state created after a revolution in the Austrian Empire in 1848 & subsequent loss of war with Prussia in 1866 by a treaty imposed on a defeated Austria.
If you read European history long enough you would come to a conclusion it was actually inevitable. It was beneficial for GB and natural choice for Portugal since nobody else could actually resist Spain at the time as effectively until France kinda found a key to those unbeatable tercias. Or rather they reached the point where tercias could not replenish their numbers anymore because the time of medieval military corporations like landsknechts or tercias was over by that time.
@@colors6692 Dude spelled one word wrong by one letter, and it didn't make it any harder to understand his point. Embarrassed is clearly a really low bar for you then.
@@viktoronodi-kiss8612 I obviously know that...I am just saying that some Slovaks, the ultra nationalist kind, would call Hungarians "Mongols"...that's why I said they would look at it as at Mongolian occupation.
Between 1066 and 1707, the Kingdoms of England and Scotland warred a hell of a lot and Scotland did see occupation during that period. The Glorious Revolution can arguably be viewed as a Dutch invasion (albeit with parliamentary assistance) but it is probably better described as a coup with an army backing it up.
I think there's a very good case for the Glorious Revolution being considered an invasion and occupation. The King of the Netherlands landed with 15,000 troops on English soil, marched to London, imprisoned the King, and bullied Parliament into changing the laws to make him king. He then ruled England directly for twelve or thirteen years, sometimes from London and sometimes from The Hague, including fighting bloody battles in Scotland and Ireland to consolidate his power.
@@christopherhapka9361 Nope, you've gotten some of it wrong. There was no imprisonment or "bullying" the parliament involved. It was actually through an Invitation made up mostly of English politicians, to over-throw and dispose the current "unwanted and unpopular" king, James II. It was more in the way of a inviting of another countries leader, to send some troops to help out in a revolution, rather than an occupation of a country, by another country. It all came about after a coalition of influential people, that was lead mostly by English politicians, who sent out an Invitation to King William of the Netherlands (William III or William of Orange), who was married to James II oldest daughter and second in heir to the throne, Mary II. They asked him if he could help out with troops. in a revolution to over-throw James II. This was due to their distain of James conversion to Catholicism and his wide swept assaults on both the Church of England and the Protestant faith. Mary then persuaded her husband William to help them out and proposed to him, that if was successful in over-throwing her father James II, that she would "consider" making both him and her co-sovereigns, as King and Queen of England & Ireland (and later Scotland) So, William shipped over and lead an army of 15,000 troops from the Netherlands, that marched mostly un-molested (for a reason) all the way from the south coast of England, up to London. Once they arrived on the outskirts of London, his army was then further backed up and joined by another 30,000 "rebellious troops" from the English Royal Army. Of course James II, with no loyal support even from his army, had no other choice but to flee and enter into exile in France. Days after he fled, Parliament passed the "Declaration of Right", in which it deemed that James, had abdicated the government of the realm, and that the Throne had thereby become vacant. Mary then insisted to the English parliament that they should make both her and William, King and Queen of England & Ireland, due to the aid they had given, in over-throwing James. Parliament then discussed the matter in a long parliamentary session. They finally decided not to offer the Crown to James only son (an infant, who was also called James), even though he should rightfully have been the heir. They instead upheld mary's request and offered the throne to both Mary and William, as joint sovereigns. Just a month later, both her and William where then crowned King & Queen together in Westminster Abbey and of course Mary's promise to William, became true. BTW, Mary was British born royalty, anyway (A Princess). As for William, he was not just Mary's wife, but was also her cousin (Yep, it's another case of royalist, inbreed bloodlines). As I said, it was really wasn't an "occupation", as England, Ireland and Scotland still remained completely under "British" military, political and even monarchist rule, throughout the event. Plus only a very small portion the the entire kingdom was ever "occupied" and controlled, by Dutch troops.. Also, after the event, the kingdom was still under the rule of "English born" Queen Mary II, along with her Dutch husband, King William III.
@@christopherhapka9361 This isn't true. Parliament invited James' daughter Mary and her husband William to come and take the throne from the unpopular king as co-monarchs. William didn't have to bully parliament into doing anything. One of this conditions of this arrangement was that William and Mary respect parliamentary power, and William was a relatively absent king who left Mary as a sole monarch for much of the time. This period saw a massive expansion of parliamentary power as a result of the Declaration of Right 1689. Maybe read history or at least know what you are talking about before you post nonsense.
@@christopherhapka9361 Prince William 3 was not a king of the Netherlands He was Stadtholder of the Dutch Republic 1672-1702 The Netherlands became a kingdom in 1815 With the exception from 1806=1810 as the kingdom of Holland under a brother from Napoleon
Yes especially where the Brits are concerned, they and their friends use the sentence "that does not count" a lot where their "occupations" are concerned, to be fair the French and Spanish use that excuse a lot as well.
Iceland was settled in 874 (having no indigenous people before the time) and became an independent nation in 930 with the establishment of the "Althing" - the parliament that still functions to this day (thus being the oldest continually operating parliament in the world). Attempts were made in the 1200 of an alliance or merger with Norway (notably men like Snorri Sturluson (d.1241) felt a need for some form of recognition of the king of Norway as the ruler of the island) - In 1262 the "old covenant" was signed and in effect it handed legislation over to Norway from that date onward. Indeed Iceland was side-baggage in the Kalmar Union and eventually wound up under Danish rule. As Danish dependents, the Icelandic people were de-facto occupied by the Nazis when they seized Denmark on April 9th 1940 so in an attempt to deny Iceland to Germany, the British were welcomed on May 10th 1940. That then is the only real "occupation by a foreign country" that Iceland has ever had to endure, Seizing the opportunity and knowing that Denmark could do nothing about it, the Icelandic nation declared independence on June 17. 1944 - 11 days after D-Day in Normandy. Actually though, things had been set in motion prior to that and King Christian IX brought with him Iceland's first constitution on his visit in 1874 - on the 1000 anniversary of the settlement of the island. Self governing had been established in 1918 making Iceland an autonomous region within the kingdom of Denmark - so it was almost a pro-forma gesture to declare independence in 1944 but events were governed by the uncertain and volatile situation in Europe. Iceland is a founding member of both The United Nations and The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation "NATO" as an independent nation. Thank you for the wonderful work displayed on your channel - I am happy to relay any information you might need regarding Iceland - my home country. Stay safe :-)
I was in Iceland for 5 months and it is a beautiful country with very nice people. I was surprised when I disovered that it was occupied by Britain in WW2 and became independent in 1944, probably the only Eurpean country which benefited from the War.
Invading Russia is the biggest mistake any would be conqueror could make, hence why "never start a land war in Asia" is a thing. Russia's resources are primarily in Siberia which even today would be difficult for an invader to reach with anything but ICBMs. And Russians will fight to the last man against an existential threat as the Germans learned the hard way in WW2.
Portugal and England/Britain is the oldest alliance in the world with the ONLY break in it being when Portugal was under Spanish yoke (which they also helped Portugal break out of). The Portuguese and the English have been best friends for almost 700 years and that doesn't get enough attention.
@@jonomoth2581 well yeah, almost all long term alliances start when two nations have both a mutual enemy and no major conflicting desires If they only have one of those any alliance is usually short term Portugal was rivals with Spain at various points, and so was England, while Portugal had no interest in land in England or France while England had no interest in land in Iberia other than Gibraltar and when it came to colonies they usually made each other aware of what areas they wanted so they weren't even rivals when it came to colonies. 1337 the Alliance began and since then the only pause was when the Portuguese crown went to the ruler of Spain and was ruled in a personal union under them
Except for that time when Britain threatened war with Portugal if they couldn't occupy the territory between Angola and Mozambique to build a railroad... The brits only cared about the alliance when it was convenient
@peter schwarz yeah cause we really needed an excuse for a war with Germany 🤦♂️the Sudetenland, taking Czechoslovakia, breaking the treaty restrictions of military size or remilitarisation of the Rhineland each on their own should have been enough for declaring war with Germany. Chamberlain tried quite hard to avoid war with Germany, he proudly proclaimed ‘peace in our times’ after the Munich conference. No one in France or Britain wanted war, we sold the Czechoslovakians down the river to avoid it. The scars of the Great War were still fresh for us. It’s mad to think we wanted war with Germany. We did everything we could to avoid it, hell even after declaring war the French refused to properly invade Germany.
When Britain was (at least partially) invaded or occupied: 1st Century BCE to 5th Century CE by Rome 8th Century to 11th Century by Vikings (Danes/Swedes/Norwegians/Icelanders/Norse in general) 1066 by William the Conqueror and the Normans
Russia was again occupied in 1610 by the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. They occupied Moscow, forced the Tzar to abdicate, and declared the polish prince Wladislaw the IV the Tzar of Russia. So a little mistake there. edit: Also Poland regained independence from the USSR already in 1989
@@TheRifild No, although he was a Polish puppet. I mean 1610 and the outright occupation of Moscow by Polish forces. They controlled the city for 2 years, and the son of the current Polish King was crowned by the russian nobility as the Tzar of Russia. So the capitol taken, the main political figure controlled by a foreign, so yeah, Russia was occupied by Poland. Heck - they celebrate the end of the occupation to this day. The Russian Unity day is the anniversary of the surrendering of polish forces occupying moscow.
Eastern European countries which never were part of the USSR, cannot be said to be "occupied". Being a part of USSR maybe was occupation for Baltic States, but not for Ukraine and Belarus. If you look at history how it formed. Yikes! Propaganda
@@KateeAngel Well, there technically was a semi-independent ukraine and belarus state after germany collapsed after WW1 and left its occupation zones to themselves, but these countries were very fast absorbed by Poland and the USSR in mere months, so yeah - a realistic Ukrainian and Belarussian state was founded in 1991. And since it never existed before... It couldn't be occupied.
San Marino, last occupier is roman empire, malta is the british, andorra is the french (napoleon) or germans (ww2) or maybe spanish in the civil war for a brief time, idk for sure, liechtenstein, idk, monaco, idk if it was invaded by germany in ww2 but napoleon did occupy it, vatican last occupier italy and sealand UK, just to fill out all the missing countries :) also he didnt actually say the last occupier of croatia, slovenia and bosnia which is austria hungary kiiindof, (diplomatic reasons) so ottoman empire is most reasonable to say (not including yugoslavia cus thats.. half occupation half union, same as soviet union)
@@mr.matinjothekiller4665 Rome never occupied SM, because it was founded by a Christian monk on a privately owned, uninhabited mountain. They didn't even fight for it. HOWEVER, it was occupied by Hitler for a while
The Dutch didnt really. Although the revoloution is pretty subjective in such regards it wasnt really a foreign power taking over a country. And to say occupied only blurs the lines, especially in regards to that revoloution. And when it comes to something like the Scandinavians and romans who did invade, you could argue that it wasnt the same england. Personally I like to think that it does count but I would be lying if I said you couldn't make a decent argument against it, especially if your only counting full occupations.
Dutch never invaded England William of orange and him alone was invited to be king because we wanted a protestant king, the Romans were way before even England existed the country was a collective of tribes and the Scandinavians were mentioned in the video before 1066, the french/Norman's were the last to invade in 1066
One could say the Romans didn't invade England as the English hadn't arrived yet & they did occupy Wales (whose occupants were joined by others who moved west to avoid the incoming western germanic tribes). The Scandinavians ( Danes except Norse in Cumbria) occupied the eastern part of modern England - the Danelaw ( at the time seperate Kingdoms ( me thinks correct?) so..not England ) .
The Brits were last invaded by the Dutch in the Glorious Revolution. I know William was technically invited, but it still counts as occupation by a foreign power as he was King of the Netherlands
Britain had a regime change in the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688. We deposed James II, the last Catholic king of Britain, and invited William of Orange and his wife Mary (who had a claim to the throne) to replace him. Probably fits your criteria for occupation.
@General Knowledge a few words more about Russia. During the war between Poland and Russia in 1609 - 1618 a Polish prince Władysław IV Waza was appointed as a Tsar of Russia. He was on the throne in years 1610 - 1613. The day, when the polish army was driven out the Moscow now is a National Day in Russia (it was established in 2005 and it is celebrated each year on 4th of November).
@@wladjarosz345 how they could occupy Ukraine if it wasnt even existinting in 1918, proclaimed goverment controlled literally nothing, so it was fictional goverment, what is more on the first free election in 1918 ukrainian nationalists get about 3%, everything else was divided between left and right federalists
@@thebomb78 errm you do know that the queen doesn't have that much power the government does and we vote for who we want the queen is just a figurehead
@@thebomb78 Its literally called British citizen. You apply for citizenship. British subject is an old term though it does still exist as a type of British nationality (but is different to citizen). British subjects are people who were born in commonwealth countries who rejected citizenship of their country and chose to be British subjects instead (if born before 1983) or if they were Irish citizens and chose to remain British subjects (if born before 1949). But subjects have less rights than citizens such as rights to work or live in the UK.
England NEVER ? England has been invaded in 1066 by a french army leaded by a french duke and stayed occupied during more than 2 centuries... worse, the queen is descendant of a french family !
@@Lucid-cf7er Irrelevant answer as England leads UK actually, the queen of England is also Queen of each of the kingdoms of UK, she's also the Queen in Commonwealth too... No england, it means no UK... The Prince of wales is the son of the Queen and future King (Ranked 1st in the succession)...
@@jpc7118 No, you're the one who doesn't understand. England is the largest country of the union but it does not 'lead' the others. The UK is governed by parliament wherein each constituency has a representative (an MP) and the party who has the majority of seats forms the executive. If you spouted that nonsense to the Queen she would slap you
The last succesvol occupation of England is in 1688 by the dutch actually. the invasion also known as the Glorieuze Overtocht or Glorious Crossing by the Dutch, was the deposition of James II and VII, king of England, Scotland and Ireland and replacement by his daughter Mary II and her husband, William III of Orange, stadtholder and de facto ruler of the Dutch Republic. A term first used by John Hampden in late 1689, historian Jeremy Black suggests it can be seen as the last successful invasion of England
Iceland's situation is a bit complex. It was initially part of Norway, who settled the island (as well as the Faroes, Orkney, Greenland and for a short time America) - which had no native population to my admittedly surface-level knowledge. Due to its distance and relative isolation from the rest of Scandinavia, Iceland became something of a language isolate, and started having minor cultural divergence as well - though in the same way Norway and Sweden has, rather than something more extreme. When Norway fell under the Danish crown in the Kalmar Union, so did all their colonies. To my knowledge, the cultural makeup of Iceland wasn't much changed during this time. When Norway reestablished its independence in the 1800s, this was sans the colonies, which remained under Danish rule, until they later got their independence as well. So it wasn't an occupation in the sense that Danish posession of them wasn't acquired through force - the Kalmar Union was a dynastic/diplomatic thing - and no natives were conquered to subjugate it in the first place. I wouldn't see Iceland as having ever been occupied, really; it was simply one country splitting into two countries, though it split from a different country than it originated in.
Quite a few inaccuracies here. Iceland was not initially part of Norway but an independent commonwealth for about 400 years. It was Icelanders, not Norwegians, that settled in Greenland and North America and there is well documented written accounts of native populations at least in NA. In 1262 a treaty was signed to make a union of Iceland and Norway but Norway always looked at Iceland as a colony just as Denmark later did. However it was the Danes that imposed harsh trade restrictions on Iceland so they did not need to have a big army just decide to send maggoty flower and 20% of the population would die (and that happened a few times).
Also, during WWII Iceland was occupied, Not by the Axis (which one may expect since it was a Danish holding), but the Allies. So while Iceland was not its own country at the time, it was properly occupied. So thing get complicated.
@@KiddyAmunda Well, I disagree with some of what you wrote. Eirik the Red, who first settled Greenland, was likely born in Jæren in Norway. His son Leifr Eiriksson, who found and probably settled North America, was likely born in Iceland. While true that the Icelanders created their own "state" (not really a state as we think of states today, but it was independent from Norway) in 930, making a distinction between Icelanders and Norwegians in the lense of modern country-states/cultures at this time is a bit forced in my view, they were both Norse. Most Icelanders at the time had very recent Scandinavian ancestry - or were born in Scandinavia themselves - the first permanent settlers arriving only in 874, and more settlers arrived from Scandinavia continously through the 900s. (Many also arrived from Celtic Ireland/Scotland, but they were mainly slaves, mostly female, who were assimilated into Norse culture.) I agree with all your other points. (Except that Iceland was independent for about 300 years, not 400).
1944 could still be the end of Iceland's last occupation, since the Allies invaded Iceland in 1940 to keep it from being taken by Germany. The last troops left in 45, but the country basically governed itself after 44.
Britain invaded, and though we were secretly very happy it was in fact an invasion and occupation. However the occupation by Britain ended in 1942 when President FDR offered his armed forces as protection to Iceland. At that point we were no longer occupied but defended by allied forces.
And also the troops did not leave the country in 1945, lol. They officially left in 2006 or 07 but they still come by a lot for training in special environment.
And the allied control council which de jure still controlled occupied Germany until 1990, the military occupation until 1991, military stayed until 1994.
@@haukursmarigislason8133 Actually the occupation formally ended on 8 May 1947 when the last US troops left the island. After founding NATO Iceland invited them back, so not an occupation even though a significant portion of the population was against it.
I'm a history buff from Iceland, and I can answer your question. Iceland started as a bunch of men who came from Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. They took on the enormous risk of the journey because they wanted to become land-owners, and there was no more land available in their home countries. While making the journey, they often made a stop in Ireland, so each man could kidnap a young Irish woman, and force her to become his wife. And this is why the Icelandic genetic and cultural heritage is just as much Irish as it is Scandinavian. Immediately upon arrival, these men formed their own independent state, and it was ruled by a republic in which only male land-owners could vote. So, to answer your question, Iceland was born as an independent state in the 10th century, and then it was conquered by Norway in the 13th century, but then Denmark conquered Norway, which brought Iceland under Danish control as well. So basically, Iceland started as an independent state, and it existed as an independent state for roughly three centuries before falling under foreign control.
Iceland in the 10th century was not one independant state by any means, nor was it a Republic. The land was ruled by many differing Goðar who on occasion met together in the Alþing to discuss with eachother about trade and resolve familial disputes and crimes. The Alþingi did not represent one single state by any means, in essance, it served the same role the United Nations does today, though at a miniscule scale.
In 930 the Icelandic Commonwealth was established. Therefore it became an independent state (some say Icelandic Free State). Of course Iceland was one independent state, as people on the island identified themselves as Icelanders, living together in the same country, and they agreed to abide to the same Law for the whole country, set at the parliament Althing (the longest running parliament in the world). In 1262 a union of Iceland and Norway was established with a contract called "Old Covenant", the document still exist. One of the reason for the Old Covenant was made, was because of civil strife in Iceland (kind of cilvil war, so-called Age of the Sturlungs). In 1397 Norway and thus Iceland joined the Kalmar Union. A union under a single monarch the three kingdoms of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. Long story short, Iceland ended up with Denmark until 1918 when Iceland became sovereign state, but it stayed in a union with Denmark until 1944 when Iceland declared full independents. About the "kidnapping" of Irish woman for marriage, then this has been disputed many times by scholars. Many of the men moving to Iceland where often the 3rd or 4th son of a chieftain or a farmer who would not inherent land for themselves in Scandinavia. Many of these men married Gaelic women in a "normal" way. The women (or their families) decided that they should married these men. These men where usually wealthy with access to ships and future land owners in Iceland. However, some of them did also have slaves (thralls or þrælar) from the Gaelic lands and also Scandinavia, but they did not marry themselves to the female slaves. It is thought that up to 10% of the population where slaves. Slavery seems to have ended in and around 11th century.
Also worth noting that Norway was taken from the Danish king and handed to Sweden after the Napoleonic wars. Iceland remained under Danish control, possibly because the greater powers overlooking its historic ties with Norway. The Faroe Islands has a somewhat similar history to Iceland and remains a self-ruling part of the Danish commonwealth.
Northern Ireland is a part of the U.K., and the Republic of Ireland is a completely different country 🙄 That’s like saying France still occupies Spain because they share a border... it’s not even relevant
@@EnsoTB lol that's not really a great comparison french don't automatically carry Spanish passports if they want to look at what's going on with the eu today precisely because there is no border there
An honourable mention please to the Battle of Fishguard (1797), the last substantial invasion of Britain. It was unsuccessful in many and hilarious ways, but kudos to the French for trying.
@@saxoninlander8279 Well, it resulted in about 50% of England being controlled by a hostile force, and a new king being crowned by them. I guess you could call it successful, certainly compared to the others. It didn't last long, but that's a different story. 1545, 1780 and 1800 were definitely unsuccessful. Neither of those could even be called an invasion, given that no troops set foot on British soil. 1797, on the other hand, definitely was an invasion, but not an occupation, because it failed too early.
Just as a side note: In 1919, the Irish Republic was declared and had effective control over 21 of the 32 counties on the Island, in 1921 the the Government of Southern Ireland was created and it would be more correct to say that this was a devolved Government within the United Kingdom. It wasn't until 1922 that the Southern Part of Ireland became a Dominion within the British Empire, more akin to Canada (you can debate about whether or not this is independence, but for me it's not). In 1937 the modern constitution was written with King George's role being reduced down so heavily you could effectively describe Ireland as a republic, even though nominally it wasn't. In 1948 however the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 officially passed all powers to a president. But many Republicans will say that in fact we are still not independent, since the 6 counties of Northern Ireland are still not part of a Unified Irish State. This is why we don't have an 'Independence Day' So Ireland either became independent in 1919, 1921, 1922, 1937, 1948, or never.
The 1919 government didn't govern the island; it remained under Westminster governance until the government of Ireland Act 1920. That acted created the failed state of southern Ireland, whose government only sat once. In which 3 M.P's attended. So, it was 1922 when the Irish free state took over governance, not 1919.
did you say that Bosnia and Croatia's separation from Yugoslavia was simple.... lol Also Iceland declared independence in 1940. It was invaded by Anglo-American forces in WW2. Hence the 1944 date.
Yeah Bosnia and Croatia were in war with Yugoslavia, but they never occupied Croatia, all tho they did occupied most of the Bosnia, they never fully occupied it and set their own government/puppet state. They never occupied Satajevo, parts of Herzegovina, Krajina etc. So last occupation of both countries was in 1945 after that they were invaded.
Iceland had been independent since 1918, it was just in a personal union with Denmark (ie, the King of Denmark was also King of Iceland) who was also responsible for defence and foreign affairs. It became a republic in 1944, which just terminated the personal union.
Iceland became a sovereign state on 1 December 1918 as the Kingdom of Iceland, with a shared monarch with the Danish. In 1944 Iceland became a republic on 17 June, which today is called 'Republic Day' (Lýðveldisdagurinn). Many Icelanders see this date as the endpoint of the independence movement and so incorrectly call it 'Independence Day', particularly in English. The Icelandic people are mostly of west-Norwegian and Gaelic origin, and not much Danish. The languages are from two different branches of the old Norse languages (west vs. east). Iceland became a vassal of Norway in 1266 ,and when the royal line all died of black death Norway got Danish monarchs instead. Iceland came along for the ride, and over the next centuries lost what little independence we had until in 1800 when the Icelandic parliament (founded in 930) was disbanded by the Danish king and wouldn't be reconvened until 1844. From there on Iceland gained more and more independence, even though we had to settle with being an absolute monarchy a bit longer than Denmark since Iceland didn't get a constitution from the King until a few years later. Iceland, a neutral state, was invaded and occupied during WW2 by the allies, and that occupation didn't end until 8 May 1947 when the last US troops left the island.
Going by the UK justification, I don't think you can argue that Turkey has ever been conquered - aside for the end of the WW2, considering that date falls under the Byzantine empire which has nothing to do with the modern Turkish state. Other that that I'd pretty much agree
@@juliantheapostate8295 seems like this is just a * for England to try and be special. The island that was britain was occupied when the normans took power
I love how its a tendency to just not mention baltics because the countries are too small for someone to care and be interested and then people are surprised when they do not know that Latvia is a seperate country and not part of Lithuania or Russia. The priorities🙂❤️
Haha, I see what you did there with Portugal/UK alliance and the Lord of the Rings intro. Nice! I am Portuguese-American, my parents are from Santa Maria, Azores.
Russia invading Ukraine would be rather stupid. Vlad the Short doesn't have that many shiny, high tech toys, a long border with China, and anti-tank missiles are very cheap.
@IMAGINE F cjdhxhxjxhxnxizbzb Like I said...it was a stupid thing to do. My point is being proven correct, and sadly many people are now dying in a senseless war.
This was a great opportunity to mention the Lines of Torres Vedras, one of the greatest defensive actions of all time, and of particular interest to someone Portuguese. Maybe it is worthy of an entire video some time?
it is not independence day, this is day of beginning of uprising - 4th of November 1612. Moscow was occupied, not Russia. Indepedence day - 12 of June 1991
@@Ultra_Hlebus подписание договора о государственном суверенитете РСФСР, 1990 год, 91 год - первые выборы Президента. А с 1992 года государственный праздник. От СССР, стало быть, независимость. Звучит парадоксально в плане "суверенитета", но до 1998 он так назывался официально.
The soviet troops left Poland in 1993 and Romania in 1958. Yet that map is 1945 for Poland, 1958 for Romania. Great Job, I wonder how many facts like that are there.
England never occupied? How about the vikings, how about 1066? Not to mention the Dutchman sitting on the throne in 1689... Brittania rules the waves, haha...dream on!
Anyone else understood the Lord of the Rings reference when he talked about Portugal? I thought that was very clever, well done General Knowledge! From New Zealand :)
I think that Russia was occupied much later by Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in year 1610, when Polish-Lithuanian army was in Moscow on Kremlin. Your heir of PLC has a support of boyars and for 2 years young prince Vladislav Vasa was a Tsar of Russia. I think that situation can be count as occupation or more likekly as P-L prince on Russian Throne.
Polish person here. Think we should do it again? Where Adi and Nappy failed, we succeeded. Oh, don't worry. It'll be a Russian this time. Don't want the people to rebel. Just... A progressive, pro-European one. Gonna have to rescue him from a work camp first. Works for us. It'll add to his street cred. And with how incompetent and outright stupid our government seems at the moment, nobody will believe it was us.
You were a little lite on accurate details of the Soviet invasion & occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968. All of Czechoslovakia was invaded & occupied: both Czechia & Slovakia. The President of Czechoslovakia(Alexander Dubček) who precipitated the invasion by attempting reform to create "socialism with a human face" was in fact a Slovak, so leaving Slovakia out of this equation was a real flaw. Otherwise this video was an interesting reflection on history.
Who did *your* country famously invade? Or get invaded by?
Greco-italian war
No one 🤣
Which country did Britain invade “yes”
The sea
Portugal = Englands oldest ally/friend
At the airport:
-Nationality?
-Russian!
-Occupation?
-No, no just visiting!
The joke normally goes with Germans but ok.
@@randomdude2026 me who is German:
@@kirbylink1992 Guten Morgen :D
@@theuniversalbandit1492 guten tag
@@ifan_ahh6539 Wie Geht's?
'Most of it has been at peace since the 2nd half of the 20th century'
Balkan: Yes, most.
cough Ukraine cough
I was thinking about Ukraine too. Let's hope it doesnt have its date updated soon...
1999 was in the 2nd half of the 20th century. So, he was right about the Balkans.
North Caucasus
Balkans
Eastern Ukraine
Transnistria
Czechoslovakia?
“When was each European country occupied”
“England: Never”
*angry Norman noises*
It was a conquest by claim, not an occupation
@@tada-kun982 then we have to differentiate between conquest by claim and occupation. Either way, you’re sure to find something.
@@jordinagel1184 I mean that they were there not just to further a temporary political goal, but to establish permanently - and they did
@@tada-kun982 then I guess we can say that England was never occupied, just conquered over and over again from the time of Caesar to the Norman invasion. Doesn’t sound much better.
Do you suppose that the invasion by the Great Heathen Army could be considered an occupation?
Icelanders dont share a common ancestry with the danish, we share ansestry mostly with norwegians and some brits and irish but very little with the danish. I belive denmark got control over Iceland after the unified kingdom of Norway-Denmark got split up, icelanders being desendants of Norse men mainly from norway had been under a norwegian king before that. Yes it was an occupation and a bad one at that with a danish trading monopoly and bad treatment. Greenland and Faroes, declare your independance !!!
England was so effectively occupied that the Normans never left.
And the Angles AND the Saxons AND the Jutes...
@@ciceronroma The Romans, The Celts, The Beakers and the Doggerlanders and Neolithics.
he missed one after john reneged on magna charta the barons invited the french kings son to take the throne which he did with a french force for 2 years until 1218 then when john died we kicked out the french to crown johns son
@@steve08717 and then invited in the Dutch king William. is it wilful ignorance do you think?
@@cottagefarm3103 Dutch troops were explicitly told not to use the word ‘invasion’, much like Russian troops now.
“First up Portugal because it’s my country and I’m biased”
Best line I’ve ever heard today
Sigma grindset
We Brazilians are conquering Portugal through soup operas and RUclips. Full conquest should come around 2030 👿
So cool!
@@nerenahd ok..
@@nerenahd É SOBRE ISSO
Ah yes, the famous balkan country of Monte, known for being a single mountain
I'm pretty sure he didn't say Montenegro for monetization purposes, RUclips is kinda dumb
i guess it was cut out by youtube bot. we live in weird times. even country names are now racist
san marino be like
@@MappingWithYakko can Spanish youtubers never say the word 'black' then? lmao
@@Sietruc Idk man, RUclips has its shenanigans
Turkey and Russia: "I fear no man..."
* looks at the Mongols *
Turkey and Russia: "But that thing... It scares me."
Not anymore. They begged to be part of the S.U. but they were rejected many times and china took a giant part of the Mongol people and made it into a province
Also russia: it scare the f out of me, when trees and snow is speaking finnish
@@mpforeverunlimited rip mongola
But the difference was Turks fought against Genghis Khan's massive army while Russia didn't...
@øranuto husband I know about Russian principalities. If you're gonna say that then you have to say that it wasn't Turkey neither, it was Anatolian beyliks. My comment was just a meme, and I recommend learning about it.
Well, that introduction hasn't aged well
Technically, Russia was occupied by Poland for a very short while in the 1610s. They intervened in the dynastic crisis and put Wladyslaw as the Czar. He got deposed almost immediately, but that techncially still counts as an occupation.
Nope. Polish control was only in Moscow.
No. If we're only taking in account that countries must be completely under another country's rule, then this doesn't count, as Poland only occupied a portion of Russia, which included Moscow, but did not occupy the entire country.
@@Пальцерезка The capitol was under polish controll, the Tzar was a polish prince, appointed by the boiars by the way, and the previous Tzar paid homage to the polish Sejm. Also polish forces controlled key cities like Smolensk, Czernihov, and polish shock-cavalry made it even up to Archangyelsk.
@@Someone-lr6gu But Poland controlled the key russian lands, including the capitol and the King (2 previous russian tzars were also polish puppets) and even russia didn't controll... well Russia. At that time most of its territory were empty steps with occasional nomads roaming arround. Poland took controll over the russian heartland, like Smolensk, Czernihov, and polish forces even went as far as Archangyelsk.
If this case can't be concidered as an occupation, then the case with the occupation of spain and portugal by napoleon also cannot be counted in. Napoleon also didn't take controll over the whole of spain, the new ruler of spain appointed by napoleon didn't have any public support, and the previous king didn't pay homage to napoleon (in the case of portugal the king was still there, just in exile). And yes - napoleon had controll over the majority of the territorry, but in the case of russia - the commonwealth had controll over the key territories, like Smolensk, baltic territories, czernihov, and polish cossacks and polish shock-cavalry were reaking havick deep in the russian mainland, while the capitol was under polish controll, and in the case of russia - you can't realistlicly take controll over all of it. Even Russia itself didn't have much controll over it at that time. Those were mostly empty step lands, with the occasional nomad tribe roaming arround. Poland controlled the key russian western lands, where the vast majority of the population lived.
@@Пальцерезка Between 1610-1612 Russia was under Commonwealth control and Władysław was offer to became a Czar but he refused to convert to ortodox. Beside Poland have emerging war with Ottomas so they pulled off whole army from east to the south.
I like how your pfp is napolean who is french , you speak english in your video and also you are Portuguese which makes you a complete western European lol
?Que? Imagine that’s upside down I don’t have the keyboard for it
@Niteroy eles estão achando que falamos Espanhol
Spain? Ireland? Iceland? *Andorra?*
@Niteroy true
@Niteroy i'm speaking Spanish because they didn't refer to Spain in western europe
As a Polish person I can confirm:
We consider ourselves being under foreign occupation until '89 / '91
@@antejl7925 We are still better of now, then with soviet so called "friendship"
@@88Grabarz Here in Ukraine, we consider de jure occupation to 91, and de facto to 2014
The Romanians saw the Red army as the help of the Romanian army, and not as a liberating/occupation army, because all Romania's institutions worked at that time and the authorities of the kingdom kept the situation under control.
But, when the Red Army started to marche on the boulevards of Bucharest, and the national authorities were left without any weapons, Romanians felt intimidated. The communist government was established in March 1945, under pressure from the red army, because since the end of August 1944 Romania had a democratic government which was a tragedy for the Soviets.
Also, the Communists had a big meeting in Bucharest with many peasants, some of the peasants were shot by the Soviet snippers, but the Communists leaders blamed the traditional parties, making propaganda.
An anti-communist meeting was held in November 1945, because of the Royal Strike, the youths sang the Royal anthem in front of the government building, but they were oppressed, by the Soviet armored vehicles (but one of them was overturned, because of the fightings which took place)
And the general elections from November 1946 were falsified, by a 4 days delay, making The Democratic Parties Block (Communists) the winners. One year and a month later, Romania became People's Republic.
And Romania was almost invaded because, it criticized the Invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, The Soviets put tanks all over the border with Romania.
It's much better being in NATO
@@antejl7925 dude we would be delighted to be neutral. The thing is that Russia doesn't necessarily allows us to be neutral ;)
@@antejl7925 no we are not under usa, they are simply our allies and are stationary here and we appreciate it, they have no influence on us other than cultural which is also a pretty cool thing
“Europe has been in peace longer than any period before.”
Russia: I am about to destroy this mans whole carrier.
Heard of Balkans?
Europe destroys itself, Russia only takes out the garbage left by the actions of European politicians
wait, this man had a carrier?
Not funny, try again
Ukraine: PLEASE NO!!!
6:00
“The invasions of Napoleon and Germany”
*Sad polish Moscow occupying in 1610 noises*
It did not occupy Siberia did it ?
@@kalpanaanubhav They implanted puped-king in Moscau
@@Bzhydack they wanted to plant him but he was too scared that russians would kill him
@@kalpanaanubhav You Idiot - nearly no Siberia was under control of Russia in 1610 .
@@PioterCygan There was 2 puppets polish "car" in Moscow (Vasl1 and Vasyl2) before Polish forces controlled Kremil 1610-1612 and burn Moscow.
Love from England to our Portugese friends in the oldest international alliance still in force. We'll do the same again if necessary :-)
Scotland and France actually older.
@@fedethefico no England and Portugal is longer, been allied since the 1300s
@@MrFrazierCampbell Ould Alliance agreed in 1295
You're right! Our friendship with the Scots is older 🇨🇵🏴🔥
The Franco-Scottish alliance dissolved in 1560. Anglo-Portuguese alliance is still going strong.
Slovakia "occupied" by the Czech Republic until 1993? Lol. It was a peacefully dissolved federation of two very close nations with almost the same language and culture who joined together in 1918 to win independence upon Austria-Hungary and share awesome relations until today. We are like brothers between CZ and SK. Dozens of thousands Slovaks study in Czech Republic on our universities for free and its usually ths first country where we expand our companies/enterpreneurship.
tbf he did pretty much say that. Not really an occupation.
That intro is just depressing now.
I do not understand the Slovakia 1993 example. We were in a federation with Czechia. The split was bilateral move by both governments. You may as well assume that Czechia was occupied by Slovakia and also gained independence in 1993. Also as an example during 1968 but also after both heads of government (Alexander Dubcek and Gustav Husak) were Slovaks. Federation is not occupation.
I always viewed it in simple terms as two friends uniting because of external problems and when those problems lessened they parted as friends. This may be simplistic as I have nothing but a general impression and no local knowledge.
Czechs took advantage of you for their goals after WW1 so that they have a weak majority in the new state (without you it would have been 46%) and re-claim German populated areas. Note the difference, in their case the "ancient borders" were that mattered while the motto for dissolving the Empire was "free all nations". Bit of a controversy here. But they somehow had to sell it and came up with the idea of Czechoslovakia (which was technically rather Czecho-Germania). They made you think you were equal but in fact as soon as they could they got rid of you. That's my point of view of course and it wasn't that so bad for you, after all.
@@arpad2188 Actually None of it is true. Czechoslovakia came into existence because two very close nations were too weak after Austria-Hungary's collapse and that is why they decided to coexist as one country. This is why Czechoslovakia even existed in the first place. When it comes to the "ridding of" Slovakia. Both countries wanted to be independent, actually the truth is that the Slovaks wanted to be separated from Czechoslovakia even more than the Czechs had ever wanted. So this is how it was. And it is not my point of view, but the reality that happened.
@@simonbutterfield4860 Actually this is correct.
@@arpad2188 Gosh, who are you? You are talking nonsense. Czechs and Slovaks have always been very close to each other - culturally, language-wise, history- wise etc. We love each other dearly. No one took advantage of the other one. Both parties decided peacefully to form one state (1918 Czechoslovakia) and also both countries decided peacefully and mutually to go separate ways ("Velvet divorce") in 1993 (Czechia; Slovakia). We are very fond of each other to this day. Actually, other countries could learn from Czechs and Slovaks how to split in a non-violent way with respect to each other.
As for the "Czech-Germany", that's another nonsense of yours. Czech borders with Germany are ancient (at least 1000 years old). Czech kings invated Germans to settle in our scarcely populated border areas. They lived there with Czechs more or less peacufully (marying each other, speaking dialect based on both languages). Hitler just took advantage of German culture present there and claimed the area as belonging to Germany (same with Austria in 1938 when he annexed Austria). What he really wanted was just highly industrialized areas where Germans AND Czechs lived (often Czechs were majority there) for his war effort.
Slovakia wasn't occupied by the Czech Republic, we were together one equal state and we feel to this day like brothers, not enemies.
what is that profile picture? looool btw Upper Hungary is occupied by slovakia
@@kezdjukel nah man lower Slovakia is occupied by Hungary. you see his pfp? that’s the natural Slovak borders don’t you know?
thats Hungarian kingdom. are you high? lol
@@kezdjukel its a joke bro, also hungarian empire*
@@Nickel_Eye Сәлем!
The Portuguese invasion by Napoleon and the British backing them up sounds just like the *Last Alliance of Elves and Men* from Lord of the Rings
We couldn't let down our oldest ally
Yeah I literally copied that part of the script 😂
It happened in the Seven Years War too, during the subsidiary conflict called the 'Fantastic War' when a small Anglo-Portuguese allied army held off and outmanoeuvred a much larger Franco-Spanish force. Most casualties in that overlooked campaign were to disease, with this ravaging the Franco-Spanish army in the field. The majority of fighting was small scale but the fact the British reinforced Portugal against France and Spain shows that the Napoleonic Wars weren't the only time the British went in to help keep Lisbon in Portuguese hands.
It is
@@matt36866 yeah, uk is our friend since the start, kinda like a unstopable duo
In fact, 27 European countries are currently under some kind of EU occupation, because none of the EU countries is a sovereign country anymore!
Everybody in Europe: is at peace
The Balkans: *We don't do that here.*
Historically false even thou I put a like on your video. At times of the revolutionary movements and ridings Europe was having regular big wars. Regular Europe has very few decades in fine peace while the Balkans being more active.
I think people also forget russian took crimea by force recently, and just moved 120,000 troops to its border
@@antejl7925 Russia first invaded Crimea, then held a referendum, which really makes no sense
@@antejl7925 Of course it completely justifies russian invasions and gives them right to occupy anything they want, right? I mean, let's just presume everything you said was actually true and not a putin's propaganda about Crimean so called "referendum" that was held under the thorough oversight of some very gentle green people of unknown origin armed with the latest russian military equipment. They would make sure Putin gets all the numbers he wants even if not a single person ever showed up to vote.
Also, Ukrainian Constitution has a paragraph that says that such referendum must be nation-wide and can't be regional. And Russian Constitution doesn't have the mechanism for republics or regions to leave the federation at all. If you ever open your mouth with an intention to say something about leaving the mother Russia you get to penal settlement for 20 years faster then you can finish the sentence, if you are lucky and famous. If not, you gonna get killed and called a terrorist, like hundreds if not thoursands of Chechen and Dagestan nationalists over the last 20 years.
So yeah, Ukraine being unitary state by the Constitution is actually more of a federation than Russia which is a federation only by the name.
@UCmxPo1SZzk1zrLL3BWIwE-w so you sitting wherever on Balkans you are and telling me there was a fascist coup in MY country? Sure you can see it much better through putin's tv then someone actually living here.
Oh, and you just literally said some random country that has nothing to do with your situation must be bombed in response to whatever happened on Balkans? What the fuck is wrong with your head?
Ah, yes. The Breakup of Yugoslavia. Famous for being a "simple process of separation." (14:04)
It was pretty simple for my country. Probably because no one gave a shit
Tito must have been quite the political man.
@@mihailmojsoski4202 are you from Slovenia ?
@@Napoleon.82 No, Macedonia
@@mihailmojsoski4202 yep. Should've guessed
One could argue the occupation of England has been ongoing since 1066.
One could argue that "occupation" and "liberation" is subjective when it comes to countries supporting governments.
Snp would say Scotland since 1707
Well, Britain was definitely occupied when it lost a devastating battle on Watling Street.
@@andrew55944 Well the SNP are thick as fuck because the unification of England and Scotland was mutually decided by both parliaments who then moved the new UK Parliament to Westminster. The only countries that were forced into the UK was Wales and Ireland (Wales because it was annexed by England and Ireland because the protestant majority parliament pushed through the unification bill, which the people didn't really want)
The English have a stronger argument of occupation than the Scots in this case as the Scottish Monarch became the King of England and then later on the two nations United to make the UK - a Scottish King, a mutual unification of parliament - England doesn't control the UK, contrary to what the SNP like to pretend - this is why devolution was a mistake, it created a space for these extreme parties who act like we're all separate countries and England invaded them or forced them into the UK - the truth of it is, the United Kingdom is one country and it should have one parliament with equal representation for all nations, elected MP's alone should decide what happens in their own constituencies and the Prime Minister is the head of one united Govt (that's the way it used to work before devolution)
Ooh burn. Don’t forget the Saxon invasion. Or the Roman invasion.
Nobody’s doing the timestamps so imma do it
1:48 Portugal
2:57 Spain
3:29 Switzerland
4:11 Turkey
5:47 Russia
6:54 Sweden
7:50 Bulgaria
8:26 Finland
9:09 Ireland
10:20 France and the Benelux
10:48 Denmark and Norway
11:16 Greece, Serbia, and Albania
11:33 Germany, Italy, and Austria
11:31 Iceland
12:16 Poland
12:33 Baltics, Belarus, and Ukraine
12:41 Hungary and Romania
13:04 Czechia
13:23 Slovakia
13:41 Most former Yugoslav republics
13:48 Serbia and Montenegro
14:10 Kosovo
14:18 UK
the breakup of Yugoslavia was far from "a simple process of separation".
a simple process (aka fighting) is what is a simpel process
as far as it can get, also still not finished
LOL at the “NEVER?” On the U.K.
Ancient Romans, Danes & Franco-Normans: Are we a joke to you?
The glorious revolution is An occupation that still runs till today
Also the Danelaw was a full fledged occupation by a foreign army.
@@florianhoeve975 Could say the same for the Normans (But the Glorious Revolution was more recent)
UK not England! The UK has never been occupied, England was not even a thing when the Danes invaded, it was their invasion that was the catalyst for creating a United England, and the Norman's invading was technically just a family squabble!
@@adriansmith3427 Glorious revolution was an invasion, their descendants still rule modern UK
13:23 Had to laugh. Slovakia was never occupied by Czechia. The last occupation was 1968 and lasted until 1990.
About Iceland: They became de facto independent in 1918 with a home government, however, they formally remained in a personal union with Denmark until 1944, with the Danish king as the official head of state (like f.e. the Irish Free State, or present day Commonwealth states like Canada and Australia). In 1944 the Republic of Iceland was declared. Moreover, Iceland was under Allied occupation during World War II.
The Czechs never occupied Slovakia. Even when they were Czechoslovakia they could have been considered two different countries in one. The separation in two countries was the natural thing to have occurred
well, he also pinned post-soviet republics as occupied by soviets, so, you know
I knew you where Portuguese how
1 your accent
2 in almost EVERY video you talk about them
3 in the first minute of the video you said our continent
especially number 2
Edit: wow never had this many likes
And his first video is about Portugal
And he said something in the lines of "our colonial war"
Well, may seems too patriotic but Portugal it's a small country with barely 10M population and I think because of this few people on the world give the actual importance of the big achievements that Portugal did on history. Who will tell the stories of the Portuguese but themselves? Carry on, General Knowledge! Força Caralho! 🇵🇹 💪
I assumed he wasn't Dutch, because of the way he pronounced Bloemfoentein in the video about capitals.
I always wondered where he was from.
His accent actually gave me no clue at all
First time hearing the break up of Jugoslavija described as a ''simple process of separation''
Wasn’t it?
@@rodrigojds Other than a series of wars and selling of national property it was yeah
@@dominiksucic2206 North Macedonia didn't have a war
@@rodrigojds The Czech and the Slovaks separated peacefully. Their countries were established and merged after WWI, and then reestablished in their merged state after WWII. Jugoslavia on the other hand, while existing after WWI and after WWII to had a quarrelsome divorce to say the least.
Trouble in the Balkans has been a thing since antiquity haha.
It’s hard to pinpoint an exact year when Sweden was founded, it’s a matter of how you define a country. The first national law came with king Magnus Eriksson in 1350, before that you could argue that Sweden was just a union of more or less independent regions. From 1397 to 1523, Sweden was a part of the Kalmar Union, with Denmark and Norway. Denmark invaded Sweden in 1520 and occupied the country until 1523, so 1523 is still a correct date for when the last occupation ended.
Especially since the idea of a nation or country as we define it today is a rather new idea.
Portugal is Britain's oldest ally😁
And Spain is disappointed with that ngl
@Dank Waifu Where are you from?
@Dank Waifu I am half Spanish/Mexican and yeah they are
@Dank Waifu he’s from the USA
@O C why’s that?
In 1066, the French Normans conquered England. This is why english has so many French words.
The Dutch came in the 17th century but did not bring their language.
@@patrickmccutcheon9361 Did I say anything about Dutch? 😳.No!!
@@kevinmaroon1093 Norman's are vikings you can't realy consider them French it's a ridiculous statement
@@calumcain2355 Normans were French i.e. from Normandy. The French Normans brought their culture i.e. language, cuisine, love for aesthetics/art to England. This is why the English language today is more than 30% French lexicon. Even words like “Joy” from the French word Joi so there some academics linguistic that say the French language has as much as 35% influence on the English language, slightly more than Latin. Just cause England hates the French doesn’t erase the historical fact that england was once a colony of French people. Comprendre??
@@nathanjackson1091 normans werent french. normandy wasnt part of france.
As for the Slovakian case. It was embraced by Slovakian politicians of the time as to end the Hungarian rule. In the 1993 two political rivals couldn't settle their differences and decided to split. There was no referendum at all. Just a politicians choice. I as a half Czech half Slovakian don't consider it to be an occupation. Thanks for the content!
I see it as occupation
You still have part of the nation which collaborates with invaders
Well this intro didn't age well...
Switzerland: Is this some war joke I'm too neutral to understand.
lol im swiss xD
Well, you guys ARE Square, get the joke? Cuz the Swiss have a square flag? Right?
@@I_want_White_Cheddar_Popcorn boo
@@AlamoOriginal oh cmon, it was good
Duchy of Milan: Lol, don’t pretend you were always like that. Remember our Battles over the City of Bellinzona and the entire Lombardy!
Burgundian Empire: Exactly.
Most Serene Republic of Venice: Lol, I’m the reason you ended up like that.
France: It’s thanks to me that you have one of your cantons! Also, I kicked you twice.
Holy Roman Empire: I mean... you’re literally my son and you betrayed me!
Germany: I wanted to invade you but I was too busy in Russia 😕
it is amazing to think that this relative peace going on in Europe right now is pretty rare
Hopefully for much longer
Enjoy it while it lasts. Russia's gearing up on the border of Ukraine.
Russia's been waging war in Ukraine since 2014.
@@Pajo25ify @JoelJoel321 I know, that's why I said relative
wait till we Europeans become a minority
Forgotten Cyprus & Malta: We are also countries in Europe, in eurozone even. Do you have to be occupied by Germans or French to get a mention around here?
"Ja"
1960 and 1964, for those who are curious. Although Cyprus has been partially occupied by Turkey since 1974, but that's out of th scope of the video.
No but you have to have manners
Cyprus is politically in Europe but geographically in Asia.
Cyprus is too controversial to mention
wouldn't Iceland's freedom be earned not from Denmark but from the British occupation? the UK went and occupied Iceland in order to increase the air cover range for the convoys and reduce the mid-Atlantic gap in the anti-sub efforts. The occupation shifted hands between the British, the Canadians, and the Americans and ended in 1944/45.
The occupation was a bit strange though. Iceland's government remained for the most part untouched, but the island was turned into an allied base of operation for the duration of the war...
I think it can still be considered an occupation in every sense of the word, because the Allies essentialy used whatever facilities they needed regardless of the Icelandic government's protests. Sure, they had elections and a government that decided upon actions independent of being told to by the Allies, but those decsions were ignored or tossed aside if the Allies didn't like them. Iceland was essentially powerless to stop the Allies doing what they wanted/needed to in their country and while the occupation wasn't nearly as bloody (some alleged rapes were about the only major attack by occupying troops on the locals) as almost every other occupation on the list, it certainly was an occupation like any of the others
The 1993 date for Slovakia is a massive stretch. The name "Czechoslovakia" should be a pretty big hint for what happened.
Czechoslovakia was only created, because they were afraid of Hungary reclaiming Slovakia, so they didn't want to create a smaller country than Hungary.
It was an artificial creation from the beginning.
@@SirGalahard This is not so simple. Czechoslovakia was created in 1918 after WW1. Slovak an czech language is so close that people understand each other without learning the other language. So the fathers of Czechoslovakia declared the Czechs and Slovaks as one nation just to support the idea of a state with one-nation majority. There were 5 milion Czechs, 3 milion Slovaks, 3 milion Germans, 0.5 milion Hungarians and some Ruthenians, Polish, Jews etc. Slovaks had full citizenship from the begining. In 1945 practicaly all germans were expelled from Czechoslovalia. The "Zakarpatska Ukrajina" (behind Karpaty mountains Ukraine) region was anected by USSR in 1945 so most Ruthenians also left Czechoslovakia. In 1969 Czechoslovakia turned into 2-state federation. In 1992 Slovak state election was won by a party which had "split of Czechoslovakia" in their programme. But it cannot be cinsidered as invasion at all. Actualy if we speak about the end of occupation, it is exactly 30 years the last Soviet soldier left Czechoslovakia.
@@pletiplot I always thought that the Czechia-Slovakia division was so chill. Talks of nations breaking apart are usually full of tension; it seemed as if the Slovaks said, "Y'know, we'd like to go it alone." And the Czechs were, "Yeah, okay. Good luck." Maybe there was more drama to it, I don't know.
@@tygrkhat4087 Actually it was like you say. There was no fight, nobody was armed, no shooting, nothing. But some tensions were there before the split like "We like to have a hyphen in the name "Česko-slovenská federativní republika" and later it changed to "Česká a slovenská federativní republika" (the lower case at "slovenská" is ok, the Czech and Slovak languages do not give upper case at adjectives, even the original noun is a name). Later there were tensions "you kept more of ... then you should keep" (usually everything was split 2:1 since Czech republic has twice as much population as Slovakia). And Slovaks told to Czech republic "Keeping the federal flag is against the agreement." (which actually was, the agreement was that no side can adopt a federal attribute as its own). I don't know how it was cleared finally. There was a regular border between Czech republic and Slovakia between 1993-2004, but when both joined EU, borers are open again. However these was mostly topic for the politicians, the normal people liked each other and still like, many Slovak people work in Czech republic and vice versa.
@@SirGalahard As A Slovak whose father resisted Magyarization in the early 20th century. I must say you don't know what you're talking about. Masaryk the father of Czechoslovakia was the son of a Slovak father & Moravian Mother. Uniting the brother nations into one successful state was always his mission. The kingdom of Hungary as part of a dual Monarchy on the other hand was a completely artificial state created after a revolution in the Austrian Empire in 1848 & subsequent loss of war with Prussia in 1866 by a treaty imposed on a defeated Austria.
man the LotR quote on the portuguese-british alliance gave me goosebumps
If you read European history long enough you would come to a conclusion it was actually inevitable. It was beneficial for GB and natural choice for Portugal since nobody else could actually resist Spain at the time as effectively until France kinda found a key to those unbeatable tercias. Or rather they reached the point where tercias could not replenish their numbers anymore because the time of medieval military corporations like landsknechts or tercias was over by that time.
@@oberonmeister small nitpick, it's tercios not tercias, tercias would imply they were females
@@themobstar58 okay, thanks for your correction. My Spanish is literally non-existant.
@@oberonmeister Your attempt at Spanish is embarrassing😂
@@colors6692 Dude spelled one word wrong by one letter, and it didn't make it any harder to understand his point. Embarrassed is clearly a really low bar for you then.
The introduction of this video about peace in Europe hasn't aged well...
Me ( a Slovak ) after looking at the thumbnail :
We were occupied by Mongolia until 1993 ?
I bet some Slovaks look at it that way : D
In Soviet Mongolia the Czech occupies you.
@@snowmanscz1011 Nah, that would be for the occupaction by (Austria)Hungary
@@Busha69 what? No mongol has ever occupied Slovakia, you must be mistaken.
@@viktoronodi-kiss8612 I obviously know that...I am just saying that some Slovaks, the ultra nationalist kind, would call Hungarians "Mongols"...that's why I said they would look at it as at Mongolian occupation.
Between 1066 and 1707, the Kingdoms of England and Scotland warred a hell of a lot and Scotland did see occupation during that period. The Glorious Revolution can arguably be viewed as a Dutch invasion (albeit with parliamentary assistance) but it is probably better described as a coup with an army backing it up.
I think there's a very good case for the Glorious Revolution being considered an invasion and occupation. The King of the Netherlands landed with 15,000 troops on English soil, marched to London, imprisoned the King, and bullied Parliament into changing the laws to make him king. He then ruled England directly for twelve or thirteen years, sometimes from London and sometimes from The Hague, including fighting bloody battles in Scotland and Ireland to consolidate his power.
@@christopherhapka9361 Nope, you've gotten some of it wrong. There was no imprisonment or "bullying" the parliament involved.
It was actually through an Invitation made up mostly of English politicians, to over-throw and dispose the current "unwanted and unpopular" king, James II. It was more in the way of a inviting of another countries leader, to send some troops to help out in a revolution, rather than an occupation of a country, by another country.
It all came about after a coalition of influential people, that was lead mostly by English politicians, who sent out an Invitation to King William of the Netherlands (William III or William of Orange), who was married to James II oldest daughter and second in heir to the throne, Mary II. They asked him if he could help out with troops. in a revolution to over-throw James II. This was due to their distain of James conversion to Catholicism and his wide swept assaults on both the Church of England and the Protestant faith. Mary then persuaded her husband William to help them out and proposed to him, that if was successful in over-throwing her father James II, that she would "consider" making both him and her co-sovereigns, as King and Queen of England & Ireland (and later Scotland)
So, William shipped over and lead an army of 15,000 troops from the Netherlands, that marched mostly un-molested (for a reason) all the way from the south coast of England, up to London. Once they arrived on the outskirts of London, his army was then further backed up and joined by another 30,000 "rebellious troops" from the English Royal Army. Of course James II, with no loyal support even from his army, had no other choice but to flee and enter into exile in France.
Days after he fled, Parliament passed the "Declaration of Right", in which it deemed that James, had abdicated the government of the realm, and that the Throne had thereby become vacant. Mary then insisted to the English parliament that they should make both her and William, King and Queen of England & Ireland, due to the aid they had given, in over-throwing James. Parliament then discussed the matter in a long parliamentary session. They finally decided not to offer the Crown to James only son (an infant, who was also called James), even though he should rightfully have been the heir. They instead upheld mary's request and offered the throne to both Mary and William, as joint sovereigns. Just a month later, both her and William where then crowned King & Queen together in Westminster Abbey and of course Mary's promise to William, became true.
BTW, Mary was British born royalty, anyway (A Princess). As for William, he was not just Mary's wife, but was also her cousin (Yep, it's another case of royalist, inbreed bloodlines).
As I said, it was really wasn't an "occupation", as England, Ireland and Scotland still remained completely under "British" military, political and even monarchist rule, throughout the event. Plus only a very small portion the the entire kingdom was ever "occupied" and controlled, by Dutch troops.. Also, after the event, the kingdom was still under the rule of "English born" Queen Mary II, along with her Dutch husband, King William III.
@@christopherhapka9361 This isn't true. Parliament invited James' daughter Mary and her husband William to come and take the throne from the unpopular king as co-monarchs. William didn't have to bully parliament into doing anything. One of this conditions of this arrangement was that William and Mary respect parliamentary power, and William was a relatively absent king who left Mary as a sole monarch for much of the time. This period saw a massive expansion of parliamentary power as a result of the Declaration of Right 1689. Maybe read history or at least know what you are talking about before you post nonsense.
@@christopherhapka9361 Prince William 3 was not a king of the Netherlands
He was Stadtholder of the Dutch Republic 1672-1702
The Netherlands became a kingdom in 1815
With the exception from 1806=1810 as the kingdom of Holland under a brother from Napoleon
Brits, Turks and Russians: We are the one who knocks!!..
There are a lot, A LOT of angry noises...
*angry roman, mingled and Byzantine noices*
Mongol*
Well, the intro didn't age well.
This is wrong
Not only was Ireland not occupied in 1931 as no foreign troops were there, also Russia had been occupied by Poland in 1612
Also the UK was invaded by the Dutch
@@lenabruin23 and the Dutch won
I love the disclaimers about the what the video is not about. There is a lot to clarify when you use the word Europe and Occupied.
Yes especially where the Brits are concerned, they and their friends use the sentence "that does not count" a lot where their "occupations" are concerned, to be fair the French and Spanish use that excuse a lot as well.
@@deanfirnatine7814 True. Complicated History.
Iceland was settled in 874 (having no indigenous people before the time) and became an independent nation in 930 with the establishment of the "Althing" - the parliament that still functions to this day (thus being the oldest continually operating parliament in the world). Attempts were made in the 1200 of an alliance or merger with Norway (notably men like Snorri Sturluson (d.1241) felt a need for some form of recognition of the king of Norway as the ruler of the island) - In 1262 the "old covenant" was signed and in effect it handed legislation over to Norway from that date onward. Indeed Iceland was side-baggage in the Kalmar Union and eventually wound up under Danish rule. As Danish dependents, the Icelandic people were de-facto occupied by the Nazis when they seized Denmark on April 9th 1940 so in an attempt to deny Iceland to Germany, the British were welcomed on May 10th 1940. That then is the only real "occupation by a foreign country" that Iceland has ever had to endure, Seizing the opportunity and knowing that Denmark could do nothing about it, the Icelandic nation declared independence on June 17. 1944 - 11 days after D-Day in Normandy. Actually though, things had been set in motion prior to that and King Christian IX brought with him Iceland's first constitution on his visit in 1874 - on the 1000 anniversary of the settlement of the island. Self governing had been established in 1918 making Iceland an autonomous region within the kingdom of Denmark - so it was almost a pro-forma gesture to declare independence in 1944 but events were governed by the uncertain and volatile situation in Europe. Iceland is a founding member of both The United Nations and The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation "NATO" as an independent nation. Thank you for the wonderful work displayed on your channel - I am happy to relay any information you might need regarding Iceland - my home country. Stay safe :-)
I was in Iceland for 5 months and it is a beautiful country with very nice people. I was surprised when I disovered that it was occupied by Britain in WW2 and became independent in 1944, probably the only Eurpean country which benefited from the War.
This video didn't age well
Fun fact: Napoleon declared that Spain, along side with russia, was his greatest mistake
Indeed. That pinned hundreds of thousands of French troops in the occupation of a country that would've been neutral or even friendly otherwise.
I'm spanish and honestly, aren't we everyone's biggest mistake? jk, there have been a few countries worse than us and we're doing better now.
Well he must have forgot about Haiti
@bob lol yup, I'm seen many a foreigner struggle with it
Invading Russia is the biggest mistake any would be conqueror could make, hence why "never start a land war in Asia" is a thing. Russia's resources are primarily in Siberia which even today would be difficult for an invader to reach with anything but ICBMs. And Russians will fight to the last man against an existential threat as the Germans learned the hard way in WW2.
Portugal and England/Britain is the oldest alliance in the world with the ONLY break in it being when Portugal was under Spanish yoke (which they also helped Portugal break out of).
The Portuguese and the English have been best friends for almost 700 years and that doesn't get enough attention.
Historically usually an enemy of French or Spanish is a friend to Britain it seems
@@jonomoth2581 well yeah, almost all long term alliances start when two nations have both a mutual enemy and no major conflicting desires
If they only have one of those any alliance is usually short term
Portugal was rivals with Spain at various points, and so was England, while Portugal had no interest in land in England or France while England had no interest in land in Iberia other than Gibraltar and when it came to colonies they usually made each other aware of what areas they wanted so they weren't even rivals when it came to colonies.
1337 the Alliance began and since then the only pause was when the Portuguese crown went to the ruler of Spain and was ruled in a personal union under them
Except for that time when Britain threatened war with Portugal if they couldn't occupy the territory between Angola and Mozambique to build a railroad... The brits only cared about the alliance when it was convenient
No. Anglo-portuguese alliance dissolved 1890, England betrayed Portugal colonies reunification
@peter schwarz yeah cause we really needed an excuse for a war with Germany 🤦♂️the Sudetenland, taking Czechoslovakia, breaking the treaty restrictions of military size or remilitarisation of the Rhineland each on their own should have been enough for declaring war with Germany. Chamberlain tried quite hard to avoid war with Germany, he proudly proclaimed ‘peace in our times’ after the Munich conference. No one in France or Britain wanted war, we sold the Czechoslovakians down the river to avoid it. The scars of the Great War were still fresh for us. It’s mad to think we wanted war with Germany. We did everything we could to avoid it, hell even after declaring war the French refused to properly invade Germany.
British Occupiers ... Normans, Anglo-Saxons, Roman Empire?
Not the UK only England
When Britain was (at least partially) invaded or occupied:
1st Century BCE to 5th Century CE by Rome
8th Century to 11th Century by Vikings (Danes/Swedes/Norwegians/Icelanders/Norse in general)
1066 by William the Conqueror and the Normans
None of those invasions are the United Kingdom.
Russia was again occupied in 1610 by the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. They occupied Moscow, forced the Tzar to abdicate, and declared the polish prince Wladislaw the IV the Tzar of Russia. So a little mistake there.
edit: Also Poland regained independence from the USSR already in 1989
you mean false Dmitry? heh
@@TheRifild No, although he was a Polish puppet. I mean 1610 and the outright occupation of Moscow by Polish forces. They controlled the city for 2 years, and the son of the current Polish King was crowned by the russian nobility as the Tzar of Russia. So the capitol taken, the main political figure controlled by a foreign, so yeah, Russia was occupied by Poland. Heck - they celebrate the end of the occupation to this day. The Russian Unity day is the anniversary of the surrendering of polish forces occupying moscow.
Eastern European countries which never were part of the USSR, cannot be said to be "occupied".
Being a part of USSR maybe was occupation for Baltic States, but not for Ukraine and Belarus. If you look at history how it formed.
Yikes! Propaganda
@@Maximmuss_ yeah false dmitry II
@@KateeAngel Well, there technically was a semi-independent ukraine and belarus state after germany collapsed after WW1 and left its occupation zones to themselves, but these countries were very fast absorbed by Poland and the USSR in mere months, so yeah - a realistic Ukrainian and Belarussian state was founded in 1991. And since it never existed before... It couldn't be occupied.
You forgot about Cyprus which is still under illegal, partial occcupation of 37% of the land to this date. How did you miss that lol
True
geographically, it can be argued that Cyprus is not really Europe. (despite being in the EU.)
"And that was all European countries"
San Marino, Malta, Andorra, Liechenstein, Monaco, Cyprus, Vatican City and Sealand: "Are we a joke to you?" XD
San Marino, last occupier is roman empire, malta is the british, andorra is the french (napoleon) or germans (ww2) or maybe spanish in the civil war for a brief time, idk for sure, liechtenstein, idk, monaco, idk if it was invaded by germany in ww2 but napoleon did occupy it, vatican last occupier italy and sealand UK, just to fill out all the missing countries :) also he didnt actually say the last occupier of croatia, slovenia and bosnia which is austria hungary kiiindof, (diplomatic reasons) so ottoman empire is most reasonable to say (not including yugoslavia cus thats.. half occupation half union, same as soviet union)
@@mr.matinjothekiller4665 Rome never occupied SM, because it was founded by a Christian monk on a privately owned, uninhabited mountain. They didn't even fight for it. HOWEVER, it was occupied by Hitler for a while
Sealand? Yes. Yes, you are.
@@gressorialNanites Noooooooo XD
@@antejl7925 Saarland was a country, now it is not...
As a Pole I can say that a big part of our population considers 1991 as the end of the occupation of our land.
... and the beggining of the new American occupation.
Well, somehow it is necessary to justify the lack of improvements.🤷🏻♂️
The Romans, Dutch, Scandinavians and other dudes who actually fully occupied England: *Bruh...*
The Dutch didnt really. Although the revoloution is pretty subjective in such regards it wasnt really a foreign power taking over a country. And to say occupied only blurs the lines, especially in regards to that revoloution.
And when it comes to something like the Scandinavians and romans who did invade, you could argue that it wasnt the same england. Personally I like to think that it does count but I would be lying if I said you couldn't make a decent argument against it, especially if your only counting full occupations.
Dutch never invaded England William of orange and him alone was invited to be king because we wanted a protestant king, the Romans were way before even England existed the country was a collective of tribes and the Scandinavians were mentioned in the video before 1066, the french/Norman's were the last to invade in 1066
One could say the Romans didn't invade England as the English hadn't arrived yet & they did occupy Wales (whose occupants were joined by others who moved west to avoid the incoming western germanic tribes).
The Scandinavians ( Danes except Norse in Cumbria) occupied the eastern part of modern England - the Danelaw ( at the time seperate Kingdoms ( me thinks correct?) so..not England ) .
@@toker6664 the dutch did invade England in 1667, it's called the raid on the medway. They established military control over southern England.
It wasn’t the same country though, it changed in 1707
The Brits were last invaded by the Dutch in the Glorious Revolution. I know William was technically invited, but it still counts as occupation by a foreign power as he was King of the Netherlands
He immediately relinquished all his power though as the English just needed him to dethrone their king so they could revolt legally.
an occupation and invitation are the complete opposite
The Dutch have a great history, and they really don't need to claim other nation's glories for themselves, with this laughable mythology.........
The Dutch didn't have a King at that point in time. William was the Stadhouder of Holland.
Britain had a regime change in the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688. We deposed James II, the last Catholic king of Britain, and invited William of Orange and his wife Mary (who had a claim to the throne) to replace him. Probably fits your criteria for occupation.
If you're invited & have to sign documents before you're even given your crown with serious limitations on your authority, does that really count?
@General Knowledge a few words more about Russia. During the war between Poland and Russia in 1609 - 1618 a Polish prince Władysław IV Waza was appointed as a Tsar of Russia. He was on the throne in years 1610 - 1613. The day, when the polish army was driven out the Moscow now is a National Day in Russia (it was established in 2005 and it is celebrated each year on 4th of November).
Funny fact: this holiday was established by the liberals on the fourth of November so that people would forget about the October Revolution.
The same could be also said when refering to the dutch intervetion in britain during the Glorious Revolution.
did the British gov cease to exist in its capacity to rule its land during the years of revolution?@@elvengadordelahumanidad6988
As a Belarusian I was like... Last time Belarus was occupied, yeah, WW2 and Nazi Germany...
And they're like *Soviet Union*
And I'm like... w h a t
Being a part of USSR maybe was occupation for Baltic States, but not for Ukraine and Belarus. If you look at history how it formed. Yikes! Propaganda
@@KateeAngel Ukraine was occupied by russians in 1918-20 and Ukrainian's Crimea is occupied since 2014!
@@wladjarosz345 Ukraine wasn't even a country until 1991, what are you talking about?
@@wladjarosz345 how they could occupy Ukraine if it wasnt even existinting in 1918, proclaimed goverment controlled literally nothing, so it was fictional goverment, what is more on the first free election in 1918 ukrainian nationalists get about 3%, everything else was divided between left and right federalists
@@Someone-lr6gu Germany was no country as well till 1871... and Italy till 1861... so what does it change?..
As a British citizen, thanks to Portugal for being the UK’s longest alliance. Is that a topic for another map?
British people aren't citizens, they're subjects of their Queen.
@@thebomb78 errm you do know that the queen doesn't have that much power the government does and we vote for who we want the queen is just a figurehead
@@penguin4241 Queen is just a figurehead COPIUM
@@thebomb78 Its literally called British citizen. You apply for citizenship. British subject is an old term though it does still exist as a type of British nationality (but is different to citizen). British subjects are people who were born in commonwealth countries who rejected citizenship of their country and chose to be British subjects instead (if born before 1983) or if they were Irish citizens and chose to remain British subjects (if born before 1949). But subjects have less rights than citizens such as rights to work or live in the UK.
@@sarahhiggins1515 who asked?
England NEVER ? England has been invaded in 1066 by a french army leaded by a french duke and stayed occupied during more than 2 centuries... worse, the queen is descendant of a french family !
England, not the United Kingdom
@@Lucid-cf7er Irrelevant answer as England leads UK actually, the queen of England is also Queen of each of the kingdoms of UK, she's also the Queen in Commonwealth too... No england, it means no UK... The Prince of wales is the son of the Queen and future King (Ranked 1st in the succession)...
@@jpc7118 No, you're the one who doesn't understand. England is the largest country of the union but it does not 'lead' the others. The UK is governed by parliament wherein each constituency has a representative (an MP) and the party who has the majority of seats forms the executive.
If you spouted that nonsense to the Queen she would slap you
@@juliantheapostate8295 Just tell that to Scotts...
The last succesvol occupation of England is in 1688 by the dutch actually. the invasion also known as the Glorieuze Overtocht or Glorious Crossing by the Dutch, was the deposition of James II and VII, king of England, Scotland and Ireland and replacement by his daughter Mary II and her husband, William III of Orange, stadtholder and de facto ruler of the Dutch Republic. A term first used by John Hampden in late 1689, historian Jeremy Black suggests it can be seen as the last successful invasion of England
The English literally let you in. It wasn’t like in 1066.
Iceland's situation is a bit complex. It was initially part of Norway, who settled the island (as well as the Faroes, Orkney, Greenland and for a short time America) - which had no native population to my admittedly surface-level knowledge. Due to its distance and relative isolation from the rest of Scandinavia, Iceland became something of a language isolate, and started having minor cultural divergence as well - though in the same way Norway and Sweden has, rather than something more extreme. When Norway fell under the Danish crown in the Kalmar Union, so did all their colonies. To my knowledge, the cultural makeup of Iceland wasn't much changed during this time. When Norway reestablished its independence in the 1800s, this was sans the colonies, which remained under Danish rule, until they later got their independence as well.
So it wasn't an occupation in the sense that Danish posession of them wasn't acquired through force - the Kalmar Union was a dynastic/diplomatic thing - and no natives were conquered to subjugate it in the first place. I wouldn't see Iceland as having ever been occupied, really; it was simply one country splitting into two countries, though it split from a different country than it originated in.
Quite a few inaccuracies here. Iceland was not initially part of Norway but an independent commonwealth for about 400 years. It was Icelanders, not Norwegians, that settled in Greenland and North America and there is well documented written accounts of native populations at least in NA. In 1262 a treaty was signed to make a union of Iceland and Norway but Norway always looked at Iceland as a colony just as Denmark later did. However it was the Danes that imposed harsh trade restrictions on Iceland so they did not need to have a big army just decide to send maggoty flower and 20% of the population would die (and that happened a few times).
Also, during WWII Iceland was occupied, Not by the Axis (which one may expect since it was a Danish holding), but the Allies. So while Iceland was not its own country at the time, it was properly occupied. So thing get complicated.
@@KiddyAmunda Well, I disagree with some of what you wrote. Eirik the Red, who first settled Greenland, was likely born in Jæren in Norway. His son Leifr Eiriksson, who found and probably settled North America, was likely born in Iceland.
While true that the Icelanders created their own "state" (not really a state as we think of states today, but it was independent from Norway) in 930, making a distinction between Icelanders and Norwegians in the lense of modern country-states/cultures at this time is a bit forced in my view, they were both Norse.
Most Icelanders at the time had very recent Scandinavian ancestry - or were born in Scandinavia themselves - the first permanent settlers arriving only in 874, and more settlers arrived from Scandinavia continously through the 900s. (Many also arrived from Celtic Ireland/Scotland, but they were mainly slaves, mostly female, who were assimilated into Norse culture.)
I agree with all your other points. (Except that Iceland was independent for about 300 years, not 400).
@@Spacemongerr I'd also say that it was more of a subjugation rather than an occupation, cause, as you said, Norway saw Iceland more as a colony.
Lmao YAS!
"A last alliance of Portugese and English..."
I'm glad you went good on that follow through xD
1944 could still be the end of Iceland's last occupation, since the Allies invaded Iceland in 1940 to keep it from being taken by Germany. The last troops left in 45, but the country basically governed itself after 44.
Britain invaded, and though we were secretly very happy it was in fact an invasion and occupation.
However the occupation by Britain ended in 1942 when President FDR offered his armed forces as protection to Iceland. At that point we were no longer occupied but defended by allied forces.
And also the troops did not leave the country in 1945, lol. They officially left in 2006 or 07 but they still come by a lot for training in special environment.
And the allied control council which de jure still controlled occupied Germany until 1990, the military occupation until 1991, military stayed until 1994.
@@haukursmarigislason8133 Actually the occupation formally ended on 8 May 1947 when the last US troops left the island. After founding NATO Iceland invited them back, so not an occupation even though a significant portion of the population was against it.
I'm a history buff from Iceland, and I can answer your question.
Iceland started as a bunch of men who came from Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. They took on the enormous risk of the journey because they wanted to become land-owners, and there was no more land available in their home countries. While making the journey, they often made a stop in Ireland, so each man could kidnap a young Irish woman, and force her to become his wife. And this is why the Icelandic genetic and cultural heritage is just as much Irish as it is Scandinavian.
Immediately upon arrival, these men formed their own independent state, and it was ruled by a republic in which only male land-owners could vote.
So, to answer your question, Iceland was born as an independent state in the 10th century, and then it was conquered by Norway in the 13th century, but then Denmark conquered Norway, which brought Iceland under Danish control as well.
So basically, Iceland started as an independent state, and it existed as an independent state for roughly three centuries before falling under foreign control.
Iceland in the 10th century was not one independant state by any means, nor was it a Republic. The land was ruled by many differing Goðar who on occasion met together in the Alþing to discuss with eachother about trade and resolve familial disputes and crimes. The Alþingi did not represent one single state by any means, in essance, it served the same role the United Nations does today, though at a miniscule scale.
Those men had great taste in women!
In 930 the Icelandic Commonwealth was established. Therefore it became an independent state (some say Icelandic Free State). Of course Iceland was one independent state, as people on the island identified themselves as Icelanders, living together in the same country, and they agreed to abide to the same Law for the whole country, set at the parliament Althing (the longest running parliament in the world). In 1262 a union of Iceland and Norway was established with a contract called "Old Covenant", the document still exist. One of the reason for the Old Covenant was made, was because of civil strife in Iceland (kind of cilvil war, so-called Age of the Sturlungs). In 1397 Norway and thus Iceland joined the Kalmar Union. A union under a single monarch the three kingdoms of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. Long story short, Iceland ended up with Denmark until 1918 when Iceland became sovereign state, but it stayed in a union with Denmark until 1944 when Iceland declared full independents. About the "kidnapping" of Irish woman for marriage, then this has been disputed many times by scholars. Many of the men moving to Iceland where often the 3rd or 4th son of a chieftain or a farmer who would not inherent land for themselves in Scandinavia. Many of these men married Gaelic women in a "normal" way. The women (or their families) decided that they should married these men. These men where usually wealthy with access to ships and future land owners in Iceland. However, some of them did also have slaves (thralls or þrælar) from the Gaelic lands and also Scandinavia, but they did not marry themselves to the female slaves. It is thought that up to 10% of the population where slaves. Slavery seems to have ended in and around 11th century.
Also worth noting that Norway was taken from the Danish king and handed to Sweden after the Napoleonic wars. Iceland remained under Danish control, possibly because the greater powers overlooking its historic ties with Norway. The Faroe Islands has a somewhat similar history to Iceland and remains a self-ruling part of the Danish commonwealth.
No Eskimos,?
Not mentioning North Irland? Ireland is still partly occupated.
Northern Ireland is a part of the U.K., and the Republic of Ireland is a completely different country 🙄 That’s like saying France still occupies Spain because they share a border... it’s not even relevant
@@EnsoTB lol that's not really a great comparison french don't automatically carry Spanish passports if they want to look at what's going on with the eu today precisely because there is no border there
An honourable mention please to the Battle of Fishguard (1797), the last substantial invasion of Britain. It was unsuccessful in many and hilarious ways, but kudos to the French for trying.
Also 1216 (successful), 1545 (unsuccessful), 1780 (unsuccessful) and 1800 (unsuccessful).
@@petergaskin1811 1216 wasn’t successful
It doesn't come close to being an occupation, though.
@@Fricasso79 It would have, if it had succeeded.
@@saxoninlander8279 Well, it resulted in about 50% of England being controlled by a hostile force, and a new king being crowned by them. I guess you could call it successful, certainly compared to the others. It didn't last long, but that's a different story.
1545, 1780 and 1800 were definitely unsuccessful. Neither of those could even be called an invasion, given that no troops set foot on British soil. 1797, on the other hand, definitely was an invasion, but not an occupation, because it failed too early.
Just as a side note:
In 1919, the Irish Republic was declared and had effective control over 21 of the 32 counties on the Island, in 1921 the the Government of Southern Ireland was created and it would be more correct to say that this was a devolved Government within the United Kingdom. It wasn't until 1922 that the Southern Part of Ireland became a Dominion within the British Empire, more akin to Canada (you can debate about whether or not this is independence, but for me it's not). In 1937 the modern constitution was written with King George's role being reduced down so heavily you could effectively describe Ireland as a republic, even though nominally it wasn't. In 1948 however the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 officially passed all powers to a president.
But many Republicans will say that in fact we are still not independent, since the 6 counties of Northern Ireland are still not part of a Unified Irish State. This is why we don't have an 'Independence Day'
So Ireland either became independent in 1919, 1921, 1922, 1937, 1948, or never.
The 1919 government didn't govern the island; it remained under Westminster governance until the government of Ireland Act 1920.
That acted created the failed state of southern Ireland, whose government only sat once. In which 3 M.P's attended. So, it was 1922 when the Irish free state took over governance, not 1919.
This video has aged like fine milk.
Congratulations man! No idea you were Portuguese!
Congratulations in being the first and only Portuguese youtuber that I follow!
did you say that Bosnia and Croatia's separation from Yugoslavia was simple.... lol
Also Iceland declared independence in 1940. It was invaded by Anglo-American forces in WW2. Hence the 1944 date.
Yeah Bosnia and Croatia were in war with Yugoslavia, but they never occupied Croatia, all tho they did occupied most of the Bosnia, they never fully occupied it and set their own government/puppet state. They never occupied Satajevo, parts of Herzegovina, Krajina etc. So last occupation of both countries was in 1945 after that they were invaded.
Iceland had been independent since 1918, it was just in a personal union with Denmark (ie, the King of Denmark was also King of Iceland) who was also responsible for defence and foreign affairs.
It became a republic in 1944, which just terminated the personal union.
Iceland became a sovereign state on 1 December 1918 as the Kingdom of Iceland, with a shared monarch with the Danish. In 1944 Iceland became a republic on 17 June, which today is called 'Republic Day' (Lýðveldisdagurinn). Many Icelanders see this date as the endpoint of the independence movement and so incorrectly call it 'Independence Day', particularly in English.
The Icelandic people are mostly of west-Norwegian and Gaelic origin, and not much Danish. The languages are from two different branches of the old Norse languages (west vs. east). Iceland became a vassal of Norway in 1266 ,and when the royal line all died of black death Norway got Danish monarchs instead. Iceland came along for the ride, and over the next centuries lost what little independence we had until in 1800 when the Icelandic parliament (founded in 930) was disbanded by the Danish king and wouldn't be reconvened until 1844. From there on Iceland gained more and more independence, even though we had to settle with being an absolute monarchy a bit longer than Denmark since Iceland didn't get a constitution from the King until a few years later.
Iceland, a neutral state, was invaded and occupied during WW2 by the allies, and that occupation didn't end until 8 May 1947 when the last US troops left the island.
13:04 the eastern european countries were very much occupied by "friendly" armies.
Russia looking at Ukraine
"lets update this map"
Going by the UK justification, I don't think you can argue that Turkey has ever been conquered - aside for the end of the WW2, considering that date falls under the Byzantine empire which has nothing to do with the modern Turkish state. Other that that I'd pretty much agree
England was invaded in fully conquered by the Normans shouldn't that count
No because England is neither the UK nor is it Britain
@@juliantheapostate8295 seems like this is just a * for England to try and be special. The island that was britain was occupied when the normans took power
Depending on who you ask about 1/4 of Ireland is still occupied
I love how its a tendency to just not mention baltics because the countries are too small for someone to care and be interested and then people are surprised when they do not know that Latvia is a seperate country and not part of Lithuania or Russia. The priorities🙂❤️
Haha, I see what you did there with Portugal/UK alliance and the Lord of the Rings intro. Nice! I am Portuguese-American, my parents are from Santa Maria, Azores.
My dad is from Sao Miguel
@@microwaveoven1235 I was just there in 2019. Ponta Delgada is a nice city.
Do you live in Southeastern Massachusetts? Most Portuguese area in America.
@@ThatGeekyMakerLast time I was there was 2018. Stayed at the family summer house in Ponta Delgada
Uk and Portugal is a amazing long lasting alliance
0:26 I get the feeling that this will age poorly considering current troop movements in the east
Russia invading Ukraine would be rather stupid. Vlad the Short doesn't have that many shiny, high tech toys, a long border with China, and anti-tank missiles are very cheap.
@@hhale They already did under Obama.
@IMAGINE F cjdhxhxjxhxnxizbzb Like I said...it was a stupid thing to do. My point is being proven correct, and sadly many people are now dying in a senseless war.
I didn’t know you were Portuguese. Your English is extremely good. Muito bem, meu amigo!
I literally thought about this
He said it thousand times
I can still feel a slight accent but I would never guess it is Portugese. Not that I've ever heard one to know but still...
Portuguese are extremaly good with English. Brits should know that since They are British allies since few centuries.
This was a great opportunity to mention the Lines of Torres Vedras, one of the greatest defensive actions of all time, and of particular interest to someone Portuguese. Maybe it is worthy of an entire video some time?
if you consider occupation of Russia remember, that Russia celebrates their Independence Day not after pushing out Mongols but after 1612.
it is not independence day, this is day of beginning of uprising - 4th of November 1612. Moscow was occupied, not Russia.
Indepedence day - 12 of June 1991
@@canalya yeah) independence from what? Ourselves?
@@Ultra_Hlebus подписание договора о государственном суверенитете РСФСР, 1990 год, 91 год - первые выборы Президента. А с 1992 года государственный праздник. От СССР, стало быть, независимость.
Звучит парадоксально в плане "суверенитета", но до 1998 он так назывался официально.
@@canalya at the time Russia was a puppet state of Poland for 2 years, so I would call it independence
@@Ultra_Hlebus independence of the RSFSR from the USSR.
The soviet troops left Poland in 1993 and Romania in 1958. Yet that map is 1945 for Poland, 1958 for Romania. Great Job, I wonder how many facts like that are there.
England never occupied? How about the vikings, how about 1066? Not to mention the Dutchman sitting on the throne in 1689...
Brittania rules the waves, haha...dream on!
It's the UK not just England.
@@ii8215 That's cheating. Europe as a whole has never been occupied either.
That Dutchman… who was invited by English nobles and the parliament.
@@ii8215 Scotland was fully occupied by England in 1650.
So the intro says Europe hasn't seen a war since the XXth century...
Anyone else understood the Lord of the Rings reference when he talked about Portugal? I thought that was very clever, well done General Knowledge! From New Zealand :)
Yeah the last alliance etc. That was a good one!
Wouldn't the United Queendom's last occupation be the Netherlands when William & Mary overthrew the government?
No since a majority of our country supported the Dutch king meaning it was like Austria Hungary but not one country
What utter tosh england has been invaded umteen times Romans,French,Scots,etc..
You said it: England. That's not the same as the UK.
Try watching literally the first part of the video again.
Pay attention you're embarrassing us
Well... this needs to be updated...
I think that Russia was occupied much later by Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in year 1610, when Polish-Lithuanian army was in Moscow on Kremlin. Your heir of PLC has a support of boyars and for 2 years young prince Vladislav Vasa was a Tsar of Russia. I think that situation can be count as occupation or more likekly as P-L prince on Russian Throne.
Polish person here. Think we should do it again? Where Adi and Nappy failed, we succeeded.
Oh, don't worry. It'll be a Russian this time. Don't want the people to rebel. Just... A progressive, pro-European one. Gonna have to rescue him from a work camp first. Works for us. It'll add to his street cred.
And with how incompetent and outright stupid our government seems at the moment, nobody will believe it was us.
Lmao you just said that Croatia split away from yugoslavia peacefully
Very inaccurate, it was the bloodiest Yugoslav war ever fought
You were a little lite on accurate details of the Soviet invasion & occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968. All of Czechoslovakia was invaded & occupied: both Czechia & Slovakia. The President of Czechoslovakia(Alexander Dubček) who precipitated the invasion by attempting reform to create "socialism with a human face" was in fact a Slovak, so leaving Slovakia out of this equation was a real flaw. Otherwise this video was an interesting reflection on history.
Alexander Dubček wasn't the president.
@@hanselvogis5142 You are correct, I misspoke. He was the First Secretary & promulgator of the Prague Spring reforms.
Thank you for the correction.
Well this got recommended to me at a good timing