Man if I had a nickel for every former British Dominion where the sparsely populated western half of the country feels alienated by the wealthy and densely populated east, I’d have exactly 2 nickels
It only just occurred to me that it's sort of unusual for Australia's East coast to be richer than the West. Wouldn't the West have been nearer to Singapore/India/ center of power within British empire? Presumably more commerce with the US from the East then?
If you mean Canada, then not only is the most separatist province Quebec in the east (and relatively poor), but the second most is Alberta, which is also the richest province. So it seems like you have only one nickel.
@@hyp3rdr1v3 IIRC, the answer lies less in commerce and more in climate. The east coast simply has more water resources and can more easily support large population centers.
@@ArcaneAvian19 correct, here in WA its basically Perth, a couple smaller places that no one gives a shit about like bunbury and then endless kilometres of nothingness.
What’s also interesting is the Northern Territory was also divided in 1927 into two more territories (Northern Territory and Central Australia) before reuniting in 1931.
It’s not really that surprising when you realise it was only a part of it on paper, the territory, even today is barely populated outside of Darwin, which only really is populated due to the gold rush. There’s a reason South Australia was willing to give up governance of it, and why to this day they are governed directly by the federal government, not a state government. The entire territory as of 2020 has only 246,500 people, to put that in perspective the SUBURB of Sydney, Blacktown, has about 367,000 as of 2021 💀 Adelaide, the capital of South Australia has 1.306 million as of 2016. Its so sparsely populated it was actually a consideration as a country for the Jewish people before Israel came to be, it’s just a whole lot of nature besides the few towns and farms.
Australia also could have very easily ended up split between the UK and the Netherlands. The Netherlands discovered it first and claimed the whole thing as 'New Holland', but it was a paper colony just like 'New Zealand' with no settlers. When the UK started setting up colonies on the East Side, they initially only claimed the Eastern half of Australia, as they wanted to respect the Dutch claim and didn't have a strong influence on the Western Half(whilst the Western half was where the Dutch had done the bulk of their exploring as well as the few landings). However after several decades without the Dutch doing anything with their part(largely due to the Napoleonic Wars distracting them and then Britain seizing all their colonies for a while and never giving back Ceylon) they adjusted the border and took most of the middle of the continent, and after nearly another decade by 1830 the UK officially claimed the whole thing. Had the Netherlands not been ravaged by the Napoleonic Wars they could have settled Western Australia. They were never going to be able to keep the whole continent, let alone New Zealand too, but Britain held quite a bit of restraint and hesitation for fully taking the island and gave opportunity for the Dutch to keep the west.
The Dutch did a lot of exploration of the Western coast but they had didn't settle. France also had interests in this part of the landmass and because Britain was afraid that France would later claim it for themselves, it further motivated Britain to establish a colony in the west to stop a potetial French claim.
I expect the 'upside-down Iberia' is because Iberia's antipode is there - or rather, near there. Might have been a 'best guess' case, or perhaps they just didn't have an entirely accurate answer back then.
@@Papahye I'm aware, but the map is almost 200 years old, my point was that it may have been placed there as an incorrect antipode due to how close it is to the actual antipode.
@@chm877 yeah maybe your right we will probably never know why he put it there( he probably believes that Australia is the rightful property of the spanish empire viva Espana!)
IMO it's there because Iberia is roughly square (like many of the proposed territories) and also roughly the same size. And it's upside down because, well, Australia.
Makoto Shinkai's The Place Promised in Our Early Days imagined what that idea could have been like. It's not the most realistic, but at least there was enough interest to explore it.
They did plan to take over Hokkaido with its d date on around 22 August 1945. Of course, that never happened due to Japan's surrender. But even if they did, the Journal of Strategy and Politics thinks that taking over half of Hokkaido was the realistic outcome. (Page 155-58 of the below link.) strategyandpolitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/journal-issue-2.pdf
Dont forget that there was a proposed partition of the Qing Dynasty. The dynasty gave concessions but wasnt divided up by the Europeans. In the end a revolution did bring the Qing Dynasty down and the Republic of China would disintegrate into a number of warlordships.
Part of the problem with the British partition of India is that it was rushed *deliberately* - Britain discouraged institutional development, and then suddenly rushed to full independence. Of course the result was chaotic. A guy named Cyril Radcliffe was given just FIVE WEEKS to determine the borders of the entire subcontinent, and was provided with minimal staff, out of date census records and incomplete maps. The result was not just messy borders, but people suddenly finding out which country they were in. I'm not sure that Independence and/or partition could ever have been totally peaceful, but at the very least it could have been smoother and calmer.
Yeah no, the British were rushed because the Indians wanted independence and showes it with constant protests. Not to mention the Pressure from the Muslim league. The British had to leave quickly to prevent British people from being attacked.
It was rushed because everyone wanted it rushed. The Indians were already revolting and demanding the British leave so there wasn't much Radcliffe could do. This wasn't like Australia or Canada where they went through various levels of autonomy peacefully before gaining independence. The only way Indian independence could have gone better was for the All-India Muslim League to be completely disempowered and arrested by the British or the Congress for a time while a completely united India gained its footing under someone with less socialist leanings than Nehru while still being willing to undertake proper land reform and support the industrial sector.
@@RK-cj4oc The Indian National Congress Party was founded in 1885. The All-India Muslim League was founded in 1906. Indian's didn't suddenly decide they wanted freedom after WW2.
@@RK-cj4oc it still means that the British *chose* to rush it because they ignored calls for independence for so long. If someone asks you to do something for literal decades and then gets increasingly angry at you when you do nothing, you don't get to blame them for your decision to suddenly do it quickly and with little care.
Interestingly enough, I once heard that during the forming of Australia there was also the discussion of New Zealand, since both had mixed feelings on whether New Zealand should join the Commonwealth (which was eventually settled by Australia leaving a clause saying that New Zealand was free to join Australia if they so wished and is also why New Zealand has an uncodified constitution since they were in two minds about joining Australia) so you might even have an alternate timeline where Western Australia (with or without Goldfields) is its own colony then country but New Zealand is part of Australia.
Half of the Kiwis already live in Australia. I'm in Perth, West Australia... Our state is a mineral and Hydrocarbon resource epicentre. Sadly few know it's beauty and fabulous lifestyle... FYI Perth is 3 x larger than LA and has the same population as the thee biggest cities in Ohio. or 3 x San Francisco!
This wasn't just some alternate history what-if thought bubble. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - CLAUSE 6 Definitions. ""The Commonwealth" shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act." ""The States" shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called "a State.""
@@adamgardner3364 Thanks, sorry for the bad phraseology. Perhaps I should have phrased it as what the world would be like if New Zealand had taken up the offer in Clause 6.
In the India partition questionnaire I wish question 6 had been two separate questions or had additional options. I would have preferred to keep Bengal intact and let Burma gain southern Assam.
Was that ever seriously proposed? I couldn't find anything on that. The only thing that comes up is the Yangtze agreement where the Europeans agree not to partition China.
@@EmperorTigerstarthey might be referring to the later stages of the second civil war where KMT attempted to retain control of the lands south of the Yangtze. But the CCP laughed it off because they had the momentum and manpower advantage at that point and just decided to cross the river straight up, with some KMT garrisons defecting and essentially posed no serious resistance to the crossing. The term for this hypothetical outcome in Mandarin is 划江而治, draw the border at the river and rule, or something like that. Never really came remotely close to becoming a reality though. edit: can’t find English sources for this but it was floated as an idea at the Peace Conference of Beijing back in April 1949. Further edit: definitely would have been a fascinating alt history idea for post civil war/modern China, akin to west and east Germany in a way
Besides what the other guys said, there are also rumours that both the Soviet and the US secretly supported this proposal, but no solid evidence could be found, the only things close to being evidences is that the Soviet tried to coordinate between both sides and the American ambassador believed that the KMT could be able to defence the Yangtse, but these are not solid evidence, the Soviet and the Americans might just have other plans that made them look like they support this proposal.
I had never heard of Hideyoshi's plan to partition Korea with Ming before so I did some digging, and I think Seth may have misinterpreted the original text. The proposal was called 大明日本和平条件 (Conditions for Peace Between Great Ming and Japan), and most Chinese sources I could find concur that this was the provision in question: 京城及四道歸還朝鮮，另外四道割讓於日本 ("Return Seoul and four provinces to Korea, separate the other four provinces to be attached to Japan.") So Japan actually demanded four provinces (probably Kyongsang, Cholla, Chungchong, and Kangwon, since Seoul was to remain with Korea), not five. The other four would have comprised a vastly reduced Korea, but not been annexed to Ming.
That wasn't a proposal for a partition per se, but more about carving out spheres of influence. Korea below the 39th parallel would be within the Japanese sphere, and Japan would be free to deploy troops and otherwise interfere. Korea north of that would be a "neutral zone" in which neither Japan nor Russia could intervene, acting as a buffer for Russian-occupied Northeast China. But Korea would have technically stayed as one country, though it's possible that this would have led to a full partition later on.
Just one correction, technically Joseon was a tributary of Qing not a vassal, as the Qing didnt intervene in much of Korea's internal affairs and even left its foreign policy largely alone (Korea conducted equal negotiations with its Sinosphere neighbors Vietnam, Siam, Japan, etc). This isn't downplaying that Qing China was the suzerain of Korea, but it's level of control was far less than what a overlord-vassal relationship suggests.
Yes it was actually in some ways though debatable like a pre modern version of a trade block were goods would be given between the tributary states and china though ironically it was actually the tributary states that almost gained more. It was also a way of ensuring legitimately for both sides as china could be recognized by their people as the rightfull emperor shown by their influence over all of asia and the kings of the tributary states could now have the backing of the most powerful state in the world
@@DZNTSONYCH Yea, the best Western comparsion I heard is that of the Catholic Church (but imagine the Pope also had a massive army) during the Medieval Era. The rulers of Christendom pre-Reformation derived much of their legitimacy off Papal Recognition, to the point that being excommunicated would be a disaster (revolts, invasions from neighbors using the excommunication as an excuse to gain more land). The Emperor of China recognized its tributaries as "lesser/junior partners and in exchange left them alone with their independence." The gift part you raise is actually really important too, the more "senior" ranked tributaries like Korea and Vietnam were allowed to give more tribute to China more frequently. This is the exact oppose from Western and Middle Eastern societies, where tributaries/clients had to give more to their suzerain than they received back. This is because in Confucian society, the Elder/Superior has to give the Younger/Inferior more in gifts to show his generosity/superiority. The Elder failing to give to the Younger more gifts in return would be seen as a major embarassment and loss of face. As a result, Korea and Vietnam wer allowed to give more tribute in exchange for far more Chinese goods. Of course in the modern era its a bit hard to think about, but in Medieval Asia this was how international relations worked.
@@sunnyyoutuber10000 While the analogy to the Catholic Church works, I think Rome and Egypt is a much better analogy. Rome has had at times claimed Egypt as part of the Roman Empire - yet Egypt insists on its independence while at the same time recognizing that Rome has a special privilege with their policies. Rome rarely ever directly ruled Egypt but the legitimacy of the Egyptian Royal Family comes from the recognition of Rome.
Some of those Partitions for Australia are so remote I doubt they would have even 10,000 population the community’s in those areas can be 100s of Km apart With populations only around 20 people one of them (Nuytsland) in particular there would be about 12 Roadhouses (fuel stations) and perhaps a couple hundred cattle stations with several indigenous communities scattered throughout.
The partition of India along religious lines was just a horrible idea in general, they should’ve partitioned it along ethnic lines or not at all. Religion changes over time, trying to set up a state around that idea is just a recipe for reactionary sentiments and undemocratic norms. Edit: I’m a bit annoyed there was no option for no partitions at all, or splitting the raj into 10+ ethnic based states. I feel like either of them would be the best option, preferably the former.
I agree. Especially as (from what I understand) the originally proposal for Pakistan was actually an attempt to force the British to increase representation within a united India. Essentially blackmail - "If you don't properly represent Muslims, we'll become independent". To their surprise, the British took that offhand proposal seriously.
both religions and languages changes over time. Though Hindi and Urdu are technically the same language. I totally agree they could have made no partition and promote some sort of union/federation according equal rights and representation whatever the religion, language, ethnicity. Both solutions aren't incompatible
The Muslim league threatened civil war if a United India was created without a Pakistan also how should spilting into multiple nations along ethnic lines be any better expect only make a less strong india
But no one lived in the north. It's just empty barren wasteland. While much of South Australia, especially most areas south of Adelaide are fertile with good rain and a nice climate, so everyone lived down in the south.
There was a territory called Central Australia that took up the Central bits of South Australia between 1927 and 1931. It was later absorbed into the Northern Territory.
Interesting fact - the lovely Joanna Lumley was born in Srinagar in 1946 - just before partition. I don’t think that Aurelia would work in Australia because there are no big cities there.
I probably would have included the possible partition of Western Australia from the rest of Australia but including New Zealand as NZ being part of Australia was initially thought more likely than WA joining Australia. Or that NZ could have been part of Australia as well as WA.
I know it’s not as fun visually, but during federation there was serious talks about New Zealand becoming a state of Australia, though due to multiple factors such as the cultural differences between the Australian colonies and New Zealand, the issue of centralising the federal around NSW, WA’s reluctance to even unite the Australian colonies, etc, it ended up not happening, yet to this day due to our shared history and close ties, New Zealand remains very linked to Australia, whether it be through our economic and immigration agreements, or through our public holidays like ANZAC day.
Section 7 of the Commonwealth Constitution concerns the Senate, and has a clause that would've allowed Queensland to legislate senatorial divisions within the state were it an Original State (meaning it joins upon Federation rather than acceding later). No delegates from QLD showed up at the 1898 Constitutional Convention since they were apparently debating whether to adopt a unitary, federal or confederal structure, and so it looked plausible that Queensland could've been internally divided yet represented as a single state in parliament. Note that despite this occurring before the US ratified the 17th amendment, the senators were to be popularly elected rather than appointed by legislatures. Note then difference between this and the act of Congress that approved Texas' accession to the Union, since QLD wasn't authorised to split into multiple states, only to allocate its senators as if it were multiple states by mere legislation (rather than constitutional amendment). Normally an electorate in the House of Representatives cannot cross state lines (but can cross into territories), and the Commonwealth Constitution doesn't preference internal QLD divisions in this way either (eg QLD cannot legislate to allocate a minimum of 1 senator to a region yet it could've allocated a senator). I'm not entirely sure but quite confident this clause of Section 7 couldn't be invoked today, but I've yet to find a definitive answer (arguably similar with the claim that Texas can split itself into 5 states: a bit hard to tell which way the Supreme Court would interpret it). Very briefly a Colony of North Australia existed around 1838 (I think), with the Southeastern border about two hours drive North of Brisbane. It contained the top end of the Northern Territory and had Gladstone as the capital. After an election the British parliament reincorporated it into New South Wales. Later on Victoria (Port Phillip District) and Queensland (Moreton Bay District) split off to form their own colonies. New Zealand was briefly governed as part of New South Wales, and is mentioned in the Covering Clauses (part of the British act of parliament that created the Commonwealth). However it isn't mentioned as a state in the constitution itself. I think Torresia and Cooksland could've been interesting though.
0:57 "...halted Japanese expansionism into Asia for almost 3 centuries." That's a pretty weird formulation. It posits Japanese as possessing innate desire to expand to Asia, while simultaneously being stopped in tracks by a single war that went badly. The truth is that Hideyoshi felt overconfident after conquering Japan, and wished to conquer the world (China and Sinosphere). This ambition was not really shared by other powerful men and women of Japan, not even by the others in the Toyotomi clan itself (Sen no Rykyu, founder of tea ceremony and Hideyoshi's advisor criticized the plan and was forced to commit suicide by Hideyoshi for it). The Imjin war ended when Hideyoshi died and his clan immediatelly recalled all their samurai from the peninsula, not caring one bit for conquering other territories over domestic stability. Tokugawa eventually triumphed over the Toyotomi, and he and his successors reestablished friendly ties with Korea. The idea that foreign expansion is stupid and not worth it was a cornerstone of Japanese policy during the Edo period. Tokugawa shogunate cut support to Japanese adventurers who established small enclave in Thailand and forbade them from entering Japan ever again. On multiple occasions, a plan to conquer Philippines was presented to the government by various magnates from Kyushu who wanted to enrich themselves, a plan that would most definitely succeed, given a very small armed Spanish presence there, but it was rejected every time. Japan really had an extremely good opportunity to conquer Korea and parts of China while Qing was overtaking Ming. Hell, some Ming officials even escaped to Japan and were asking for military assistance. Likewise, Koreans hated Qing, viewing them as barbarians, and some sort of Japanese protectorate would perhaps be welcome; but the Tokugawa shogunate had absolutely no intention to be militarily involved in any manner. When Japan eventually sought to defeat China and conquer Korea, it was after Perry's black ships and after the Meiji restoration, in a completely new and different geopolitical environment. Japan westernized, and sought to curry favour with westerners by antagonizing China - that was the primary intention of the 1st Sino-Japanese war; the crushing defeat Japan gave the weakened Qing was a big surprise to everybody, and Japanese influence over and eventual control of Korea was more or less a "happy coincidence", rather than something Japan desired from the start. Japan has been and is often demonized as a warlike nation that got "civilized" by the USA after 1945; but that Japan actually recognized the foolishness of wars of expansion and lived in peace (at least compared the the west of the time) from 1600 to 1850, and became a warlike, expansionist nation in inspiration from and as a reaction to western imperialism ought to be remembered.
I agree with this view of the Imjin war and Edo period, and that the expansionist/colonial mindset largely started after the Meiji restoration, but question this interpretation of the intent of the 1st Sino-Japanese war. Do you have any references to suggest controlling Korea was not the intention of the 1st Sino-Japanese war? Why did Japan provoke and institute the Japan-Korea Treaty of 1876 long before the Sino-Japanese war?
You didn’t mention that the Northern Territory of Australia was partitioned between 1927 and 1931 at the 20th parallel - with the north section - “Northern Australia” - being governed from Darwin and the southern section - “Central Australia” - being governed from Alice Springs. In 1931 the seat of government became the Commonwealth (Federal) administration in Darwin - governing all the NT, until handing over to an elected NT Government in 1978. Yet even to this day, there are separate administrative divisions. E.g. the Northern police command in Darwin and the Southern command in Alice Springs - each headed by an Assistant Commissioner, whilst the NT police headquarters and training college is in Darwin, There’s also the Top End Health Service, covering Royal Darwin hospital and regional hospitals in Palmerston (outer Darwin), Katherine and Nhulunbuy; plus the Centralian Health Service covering Alice Springs Hospital and a regional hospital in Tennant Creek. There are also Top End and Centralian schools districts, similarly based in Darwin and Alice Springs - 1,300 kms or 900 miles (a 19 hour drive) or a 2 hour jet flight apart. (Kym in Palmerston, Darwin’s near-by kid-brother city (founded in the 80’s and now home to 40,000).
Australia invited New Zealand to join and become state way back at the start, but they rejected joining us. Also, I think in early 2000s New Zealand proposed joining currency but Australia rejected it.
By the way fun fact many people say Bangladesh today became independent because Kashmir wasnt independent. The reason behind this saying is because of Kashmir, Pakistan gave more attention to the mainland instead of Bangladesh which made Bengalis more distant. If Kashmir became independent Pakistan would have used more resources to make sure East Bengal stayed within Pakistan
I think the iberian peninsula is to show relative size and latitude, as the southernmost area of western europe, to give settlers an idea of the weather, maybe?
Personally I believe Western Australia should be broken into two states across the 26th parallel, as its the only way the north will ever be fully developed with the wealth it generates.
Ming wouldn't have accepted any partition of Korea in any universe whatsoever. We laughed at Japan's desperate attempts to get something out of its disastrous campaign. Why would we let Japan have even and inch of Korea when they failed to take anything? To annex the other 3rd of it? We already had influence over ALL of Korea. Annexation was not Ming's style.
DID YOU INCLUDE the fact that Western Australia had a vote to become a seperate country and WON a 2/3 majority but it was swept under the rug over the feds paying for half on the Nullarbor railway line. Same during federation from memory. I believe TWICE they wanted to be a seperate country. Oh, and in the end, WESTERN AUSTRALIA are the rich ones but never show it. The eastern states build big and flashy and are DROWNING in debt. For the second time since 1990, the Victorian state government is close to bankruptcy
Another bit of India-related misinformation.... "Jammu and Kashmir was forcibly seized by both countries." This is not true at all, the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir signed the instrument of accession with India and officially joined India before the first Indian troops were airdropped into Kashmir. India specifically required this to avoid sending troops into what was at least nominally still an independent state, even if the intervention was requested by the ruler. India only sent forces into the state once it had become part of India. They did not forcibly seize anything. On Pakistan's side, they claim that the fighters who advanced into Kashmir were from Pakistan's tribal areas, but the Pakistani government/military had no control over them, so if you believe Pakistan (I don't but still), they didn't forcibly seize Kashmir either. The Pakistani armed forces only formally advanced into Kashmir after the Indian troops were already there. Again, this information is NOT hard to find and it takes very little effort and attention to detail to get it right. I'm not sure why you decided it was okay to half-ass the research, both here and in your dedicated Partition of India video. There are other videos on RUclips that get this exactly right - for example, you can check the 1947 Indo-Pak War video on the Cold War RUclips channel.
You left out the possible partition of Australia into French, Dutch, and British colonies. Also you should have mentioned the former partition of Vietnam into a communist North and a free South.
It wasn't partition but a civil war. Similar but not the same and no side really ever wanted partition scensrio wirh two Vietnams. And it's similar case with China and Taiwan as weird and long this situation is. But Taiwan doesn't even pursues it's independence recognition too much aside from the obvious pushback from China and majority of countries siding with China on the matter. But that one aside, most of Taiwanese isn't looking for full on recognized independence and just prefer status quo to avoid any tension if possible.
@@andrzejnadgirl2029 True, it had aspects of a civil war but it was between two independent and internationally recognized countries. What is now one country used to be three: Annam, Tonkin, & Cochinchina, until they were conquered by France and amalgamated into one as part of France's Indochina colony. It was when France agreed to give up French Indochina, that the Vietnam part was temporarily partitioned until a government was formed. However the Viet Minh, supported by Russia and Red China, wanted a communist dictatorship while the southern regions wanted a multi-party republic. With no agreement, two SEPARATE countries were formed. The Viet Minh created the Viet Cong to destabilize South Vietnam until they could build up the North Vietnamese army enough to take over the south.
No that is the way the French divided Viet Nam to rule. Vietnam has been united for a century when the French divided it into three parts : Cochinchina full colony, Tonkin protectorate and An Nam which are left to be governed by the Vietnamese emperor but under overlordship by French Governor General. You are just wrong
My man.. how did you forget China? Granted, as you mention, it may be more alt-history than tangible proposals but the US virtually single-handedly prevented China from being carved up by the European colonial powers in a manner similar to Africa...
What I find fascinating about the 1838 Australia map is there appears to be a whole other fictitious island south of Australia no one is mentioning? Or is that supposed to signify something else?
As a Korean I listened the first segment thoroughly perturbed tbh. From the Hideyoshi being audacious(as on brand for him) to a point of demanding a member of the Ming royal successor to be wedded to his family, and 4 provinces of then Joseon, despite how his country were on the LOSING side of the war. and to the implications of how Qing could have controlled the northern half of the peninsula had his ludicrous demands somehow went through. Though I don't think that would have still happened given their way of treating Joseon. They didn't mind as long as people of Joseon didn't extract ginseng from their homeland of Manchuria and had properly given their tributes. They didn't interfere with its internal politics despite how every aristocrat during that time were openly anti-Qing. Records say they were even reasonable during the Amnok-river territory dispute, as they listened to Joseon's positions carefully.
I just wanted to say that Japan likely sent that offer of splitting Korea when they still had the majority of Korea technically under there control during the first wave of the invasion, even reaching the Manchurian border and fighting some of the Manchus actually. I will say though the idea of China and Japan somehow ending up in a royal marriage and thus a union of sorts sounds both crazy and very interesting lol
I Am From Bangladesh And If This 7:35 Happened Then My Country Would Be More Developed But Pakistani Rule And Then Indian Puppet Government's Made My Country Undeveloped
Vote to decide the fate of the Partition of India! Results will be posted on a video on August 23rd!
forms.gle/LD7ZLEXs9Zf9qyk4A
Korea sure does have a long history of getting the very short end of the stick!
Kind of a short poll? I was thinking about giving Assam independence or dividing kashmir differently like shown in the video
Wouldn't surprise me if this ends up like the WW1 partition video
Didn’t even mention Goa
On Junagadh, one more move and it'll be South Pakistan and eventually "Gujratia". Remember when Bangladesh used to be called "East Pakistan"?
Man if I had a nickel for every former British Dominion where the sparsely populated western half of the country feels alienated by the wealthy and densely populated east, I’d have exactly 2 nickels
Wouldn't ther ebe more?
It only just occurred to me that it's sort of unusual for Australia's East coast to be richer than the West. Wouldn't the West have been nearer to Singapore/India/ center of power within British empire?
Presumably more commerce with the US from the East then?
If you mean Canada, then not only is the most separatist province Quebec in the east (and relatively poor), but the second most is Alberta, which is also the richest province. So it seems like you have only one nickel.
@@hyp3rdr1v3 IIRC, the answer lies less in commerce and more in climate. The east coast simply has more water resources and can more easily support large population centers.
@@ArcaneAvian19 correct, here in WA its basically Perth, a couple smaller places that no one gives a shit about like bunbury and then endless kilometres of nothingness.
I still couldn’t get over the fact that the Northern Territory was part of the southern Australia territory.
What’s also interesting is the Northern Territory was also divided in 1927 into two more territories (Northern Territory and Central Australia) before reuniting in 1931.
It’s not really that surprising when you realise it was only a part of it on paper, the territory, even today is barely populated outside of Darwin, which only really is populated due to the gold rush. There’s a reason South Australia was willing to give up governance of it, and why to this day they are governed directly by the federal government, not a state government.
The entire territory as of 2020 has only 246,500 people, to put that in perspective the SUBURB of Sydney, Blacktown, has about 367,000 as of 2021 💀 Adelaide, the capital of South Australia has 1.306 million as of 2016. Its so sparsely populated it was actually a consideration as a country for the Jewish people before Israel came to be, it’s just a whole lot of nature besides the few towns and farms.
It was for a VERY long time
Australia also could have very easily ended up split between the UK and the Netherlands.
The Netherlands discovered it first and claimed the whole thing as 'New Holland', but it was a paper colony just like 'New Zealand' with no settlers. When the UK started setting up colonies on the East Side, they initially only claimed the Eastern half of Australia, as they wanted to respect the Dutch claim and didn't have a strong influence on the Western Half(whilst the Western half was where the Dutch had done the bulk of their exploring as well as the few landings). However after several decades without the Dutch doing anything with their part(largely due to the Napoleonic Wars distracting them and then Britain seizing all their colonies for a while and never giving back Ceylon) they adjusted the border and took most of the middle of the continent, and after nearly another decade by 1830 the UK officially claimed the whole thing.
Had the Netherlands not been ravaged by the Napoleonic Wars they could have settled Western Australia. They were never going to be able to keep the whole continent, let alone New Zealand too, but Britain held quite a bit of restraint and hesitation for fully taking the island and gave opportunity for the Dutch to keep the west.
And then there were the French, who were very interested for a while...
The Dutch did a lot of exploration of the Western coast but they had didn't settle.
France also had interests in this part of the landmass and because Britain was afraid that France would later claim it for themselves, it further motivated Britain to establish a colony in the west to stop a potetial French claim.
I expect the 'upside-down Iberia' is because Iberia's antipode is there - or rather, near there. Might have been a 'best guess' case, or perhaps they just didn't have an entirely accurate answer back then.
The antipode of Iberia is in New Zealand.
@@Papahye I'm aware, but the map is almost 200 years old, my point was that it may have been placed there as an incorrect antipode due to how close it is to the actual antipode.
@@chm877 yeah maybe your right we will probably never know why he put it there( he probably believes that Australia is the rightful property of the spanish empire viva Espana!)
@@chm877 i think they werent trying to show the antipode, rather just the relative latitude to show how warm it would be
IMO it's there because Iberia is roughly square (like many of the proposed territories) and also roughly the same size. And it's upside down because, well, Australia.
I think it would've been neat to talk about the USSR's (failed) pressuring of the USA to let it occupy Hokkaido.
Makoto Shinkai's The Place Promised in Our Early Days imagined what that idea could have been like. It's not the most realistic, but at least there was enough interest to explore it.
They did plan to take over Hokkaido with its d date on around 22 August 1945. Of course, that never happened due to Japan's surrender. But even if they did, the Journal of Strategy and Politics thinks that taking over half of Hokkaido was the realistic outcome. (Page 155-58 of the below link.)
strategyandpolitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/journal-issue-2.pdf
maybe the ainu would not have their culture almost destroyed by japanese nationalists.
the biggest tragedy of WW2 was that the USSR didn’t occupy more land
@@PainterVierax I doubt it would be much better under the Soviets/Russians.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainu_in_Russia
Dont forget that there was a proposed partition of the Qing Dynasty. The dynasty gave concessions but wasnt divided up by the Europeans. In the end a revolution did bring the Qing Dynasty down and the Republic of China would disintegrate into a number of warlordships.
Part of the problem with the British partition of India is that it was rushed *deliberately* - Britain discouraged institutional development, and then suddenly rushed to full independence. Of course the result was chaotic. A guy named Cyril Radcliffe was given just FIVE WEEKS to determine the borders of the entire subcontinent, and was provided with minimal staff, out of date census records and incomplete maps. The result was not just messy borders, but people suddenly finding out which country they were in.
I'm not sure that Independence and/or partition could ever have been totally peaceful, but at the very least it could have been smoother and calmer.
Yeah no, the British were rushed because the Indians wanted independence and showes it with constant protests. Not to mention the Pressure from the Muslim league. The British had to leave quickly to prevent British people from being attacked.
It was rushed because everyone wanted it rushed. The Indians were already revolting and demanding the British leave so there wasn't much Radcliffe could do. This wasn't like Australia or Canada where they went through various levels of autonomy peacefully before gaining independence. The only way Indian independence could have gone better was for the All-India Muslim League to be completely disempowered and arrested by the British or the Congress for a time while a completely united India gained its footing under someone with less socialist leanings than Nehru while still being willing to undertake proper land reform and support the industrial sector.
@@RK-cj4oc The Indian National Congress Party was founded in 1885. The All-India Muslim League was founded in 1906. Indian's didn't suddenly decide they wanted freedom after WW2.
@@pavarottiaardvark3431 Okay, that has nothing to do with what i said however?
@@RK-cj4oc it still means that the British *chose* to rush it because they ignored calls for independence for so long. If someone asks you to do something for literal decades and then gets increasingly angry at you when you do nothing, you don't get to blame them for your decision to suddenly do it quickly and with little care.
Partitions? Finally. Next are Partitions of Mars that almost happened, right?
Give it 100 years
LOL it may actually happen, based on the technology and ideology we have today.
lmao
Ye
Interestingly enough, I once heard that during the forming of Australia there was also the discussion of New Zealand, since both had mixed feelings on whether New Zealand should join the Commonwealth (which was eventually settled by Australia leaving a clause saying that New Zealand was free to join Australia if they so wished and is also why New Zealand has an uncodified constitution since they were in two minds about joining Australia) so you might even have an alternate timeline where Western Australia (with or without Goldfields) is its own colony then country but New Zealand is part of Australia.
Half of the Kiwis already live in Australia. I'm in Perth, West Australia... Our state is a mineral and Hydrocarbon resource epicentre. Sadly few know it's beauty and fabulous lifestyle... FYI Perth is 3 x larger than LA and has the same population as the thee biggest cities in Ohio. or 3 x San Francisco!
This wasn't just some alternate history what-if thought bubble.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - CLAUSE 6
Definitions.
""The Commonwealth" shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act."
""The States" shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called "a State.""
@@adamgardner3364 Thanks, sorry for the bad phraseology. Perhaps I should have phrased it as what the world would be like if New Zealand had taken up the offer in Clause 6.
@@DumbSkippy Interesting, sadly I've never been to Australia but it looks beautiful.
In the India partition questionnaire I wish question 6 had been two separate questions or had additional options. I would have preferred to keep Bengal intact and let Burma gain southern Assam.
Can I ask why? India is not the best run state, but Burma is way more dysfunctional....
2:55 Seeing Perth being in a state called Victoria makes me violently ill.
😂😂😂👌
"Welcome to the state capital of Victoria, Perth"
You could also mentioned the proposed partition of China along the Yangtze
Was that ever seriously proposed? I couldn't find anything on that. The only thing that comes up is the Yangtze agreement where the Europeans agree not to partition China.
@@EmperorTigerstarthey might be referring to the later stages of the second civil war where KMT attempted to retain control of the lands south of the Yangtze. But the CCP laughed it off because they had the momentum and manpower advantage at that point and just decided to cross the river straight up, with some KMT garrisons defecting and essentially posed no serious resistance to the crossing. The term for this hypothetical outcome in Mandarin is 划江而治, draw the border at the river and rule, or something like that. Never really came remotely close to becoming a reality though.
edit: can’t find English sources for this but it was floated as an idea at the Peace Conference of Beijing back in April 1949.
Further edit: definitely would have been a fascinating alt history idea for post civil war/modern China, akin to west and east Germany in a way
Besides what the other guys said, there are also rumours that both the Soviet and the US secretly supported this proposal, but no solid evidence could be found, the only things close to being evidences is that the Soviet tried to coordinate between both sides and the American ambassador believed that the KMT could be able to defence the Yangtse, but these are not solid evidence, the Soviet and the Americans might just have other plans that made them look like they support this proposal.
@@MDreamchaserI ain’t reading all that…
A
@@louplayz752 Give me a tl;dr
Spain and Portugal are upside down because that's the position they would be if you superimposed the Northern Hemisphere over the southern hemisphere.
Antipodes
I had never heard of Hideyoshi's plan to partition Korea with Ming before so I did some digging, and I think Seth may have misinterpreted the original text. The proposal was called 大明日本和平条件 (Conditions for Peace Between Great Ming and Japan), and most Chinese sources I could find concur that this was the provision in question:
京城及四道歸還朝鮮，另外四道割讓於日本 ("Return Seoul and four provinces to Korea, separate the other four provinces to be attached to Japan.")
So Japan actually demanded four provinces (probably Kyongsang, Cholla, Chungchong, and Kangwon, since Seoul was to remain with Korea), not five. The other four would have comprised a vastly reduced Korea, but not been annexed to Ming.
Next Upload: “Partitions in my family that almost happened”
Wasn’t there that one time when Russia tried splitting Korea with Japan on the 39th parallel?
That wasn't a proposal for a partition per se, but more about carving out spheres of influence. Korea below the 39th parallel would be within the Japanese sphere, and Japan would be free to deploy troops and otherwise interfere. Korea north of that would be a "neutral zone" in which neither Japan nor Russia could intervene, acting as a buffer for Russian-occupied Northeast China. But Korea would have technically stayed as one country, though it's possible that this would have led to a full partition later on.
@@TheDragonHistorian didnt expect to see you here
Love these videos but the background music is so loud, might just be my earphones lol. Will try on desktop.
i love picking the most chaotic options everytime theres a survey
Just one correction, technically Joseon was a tributary of Qing not a vassal, as the Qing didnt intervene in much of Korea's internal affairs and even left its foreign policy largely alone (Korea conducted equal negotiations with its Sinosphere neighbors Vietnam, Siam, Japan, etc). This isn't downplaying that Qing China was the suzerain of Korea, but it's level of control was far less than what a overlord-vassal relationship suggests.
Yes it was actually in some ways though debatable like a pre modern version of a trade block were goods would be given between the tributary states and china though ironically it was actually the tributary states that almost gained more. It was also a way of ensuring legitimately for both sides as china could be recognized by their people as the rightfull emperor shown by their influence over all of asia and the kings of the tributary states could now have the backing of the most powerful state in the world
@@DZNTSONYCH Yea, the best Western comparsion I heard is that of the Catholic Church (but imagine the Pope also had a massive army) during the Medieval Era. The rulers of Christendom pre-Reformation derived much of their legitimacy off Papal Recognition, to the point that being excommunicated would be a disaster (revolts, invasions from neighbors using the excommunication as an excuse to gain more land). The Emperor of China recognized its tributaries as "lesser/junior partners and in exchange left them alone with their independence."
The gift part you raise is actually really important too, the more "senior" ranked tributaries like Korea and Vietnam were allowed to give more tribute to China more frequently. This is the exact oppose from Western and Middle Eastern societies, where tributaries/clients had to give more to their suzerain than they received back. This is because in Confucian society, the Elder/Superior has to give the Younger/Inferior more in gifts to show his generosity/superiority. The Elder failing to give to the Younger more gifts in return would be seen as a major embarassment and loss of face. As a result, Korea and Vietnam wer allowed to give more tribute in exchange for far more Chinese goods. Of course in the modern era its a bit hard to think about, but in Medieval Asia this was how international relations worked.
@@sunnyyoutuber10000 While the analogy to the Catholic Church works, I think Rome and Egypt is a much better analogy. Rome has had at times claimed Egypt as part of the Roman Empire - yet Egypt insists on its independence while at the same time recognizing that Rome has a special privilege with their policies.
Rome rarely ever directly ruled Egypt but the legitimacy of the Egyptian Royal Family comes from the recognition of Rome.
so glad this series came back! :)
Some of those Partitions for Australia are so remote I doubt they would have even 10,000 population the community’s in those areas can be 100s of Km apart With populations only around 20 people one of them (Nuytsland) in particular there would be about 12 Roadhouses (fuel stations) and perhaps a couple hundred cattle stations with several indigenous communities scattered throughout.
finally, the final video to the series, awesome!
I'm so happy we get to vote on this. I hope we get an alternative history video to accompany our results.
You forget India was partitioned by Britain. And we are still suffering. Same tactics by Britain when they divided Ireland.
oooh do a video on Antarctica and the Antarctic Treaty
Can your next mapping video be the youtube civil war; Mrbeast and allies vs. Dogpack and allies?
This could be entertaining
YOU SHOULD MAKE AN UPDATED UKRAINE FRONTLINES VIDEO
The partition of India along religious lines was just a horrible idea in general, they should’ve partitioned it along ethnic lines or not at all. Religion changes over time, trying to set up a state around that idea is just a recipe for reactionary sentiments and undemocratic norms.
Edit: I’m a bit annoyed there was no option for no partitions at all, or splitting the raj into 10+ ethnic based states. I feel like either of them would be the best option, preferably the former.
I agree. Especially as (from what I understand) the originally proposal for Pakistan was actually an attempt to force the British to increase representation within a united India. Essentially blackmail - "If you don't properly represent Muslims, we'll become independent". To their surprise, the British took that offhand proposal seriously.
Well because conflict mostly cause by religious differences
both religions and languages changes over time. Though Hindi and Urdu are technically the same language.
I totally agree they could have made no partition and promote some sort of union/federation according equal rights and representation whatever the religion, language, ethnicity. Both solutions aren't incompatible
The Muslim league threatened civil war if a United India was created without a Pakistan also how should spilting into multiple nations along ethnic lines be any better expect only make a less strong india
Doesn't matter if you disagree
It prevented many problems chaos riots and extreme civil war
I haven't watched it yet, but i can sense its a good video from miles away.
South Australia containing the northern territory and south Australia should be renamed to central Australia
But no one lived in the north. It's just empty barren wasteland. While much of South Australia, especially most areas south of Adelaide are fertile with good rain and a nice climate, so everyone lived down in the south.
There was a territory called Central Australia that took up the Central bits of South Australia between 1927 and 1931. It was later absorbed into the Northern Territory.
Alright guys see you in 1 year and 10 months for the final video about the possible partisans of Antarctica
Finally, we're here.
2:42 AMERICANISED AUSTRALIA
Interesting fact - the lovely Joanna Lumley was born in Srinagar in 1946 - just before partition. I don’t think that Aurelia would work in Australia because there are no big cities there.
I probably would have included the possible partition of Western Australia from the rest of Australia but including New Zealand as NZ being part of Australia was initially thought more likely than WA joining Australia. Or that NZ could have been part of Australia as well as WA.
I know it’s not as fun visually, but during federation there was serious talks about New Zealand becoming a state of Australia, though due to multiple factors such as the cultural differences between the Australian colonies and New Zealand, the issue of centralising the federal around NSW, WA’s reluctance to even unite the Australian colonies, etc, it ended up not happening, yet to this day due to our shared history and close ties, New Zealand remains very linked to Australia, whether it be through our economic and immigration agreements, or through our public holidays like ANZAC day.
Section 7 of the Commonwealth Constitution concerns the Senate, and has a clause that would've allowed Queensland to legislate senatorial divisions within the state were it an Original State (meaning it joins upon Federation rather than acceding later). No delegates from QLD showed up at the 1898 Constitutional Convention since they were apparently debating whether to adopt a unitary, federal or confederal structure, and so it looked plausible that Queensland could've been internally divided yet represented as a single state in parliament. Note that despite this occurring before the US ratified the 17th amendment, the senators were to be popularly elected rather than appointed by legislatures. Note then difference between this and the act of Congress that approved Texas' accession to the Union, since QLD wasn't authorised to split into multiple states, only to allocate its senators as if it were multiple states by mere legislation (rather than constitutional amendment). Normally an electorate in the House of Representatives cannot cross state lines (but can cross into territories), and the Commonwealth Constitution doesn't preference internal QLD divisions in this way either (eg QLD cannot legislate to allocate a minimum of 1 senator to a region yet it could've allocated a senator). I'm not entirely sure but quite confident this clause of Section 7 couldn't be invoked today, but I've yet to find a definitive answer (arguably similar with the claim that Texas can split itself into 5 states: a bit hard to tell which way the Supreme Court would interpret it).
Very briefly a Colony of North Australia existed around 1838 (I think), with the Southeastern border about two hours drive North of Brisbane. It contained the top end of the Northern Territory and had Gladstone as the capital. After an election the British parliament reincorporated it into New South Wales. Later on Victoria (Port Phillip District) and Queensland (Moreton Bay District) split off to form their own colonies.
New Zealand was briefly governed as part of New South Wales, and is mentioned in the Covering Clauses (part of the British act of parliament that created the Commonwealth). However it isn't mentioned as a state in the constitution itself. I think Torresia and Cooksland could've been interesting though.
0:57 "...halted Japanese expansionism into Asia for almost 3 centuries."
That's a pretty weird formulation. It posits Japanese as possessing innate desire to expand to Asia, while simultaneously being stopped in tracks by a single war that went badly. The truth is that Hideyoshi felt overconfident after conquering Japan, and wished to conquer the world (China and Sinosphere). This ambition was not really shared by other powerful men and women of Japan, not even by the others in the Toyotomi clan itself (Sen no Rykyu, founder of tea ceremony and Hideyoshi's advisor criticized the plan and was forced to commit suicide by Hideyoshi for it).
The Imjin war ended when Hideyoshi died and his clan immediatelly recalled all their samurai from the peninsula, not caring one bit for conquering other territories over domestic stability. Tokugawa eventually triumphed over the Toyotomi, and he and his successors reestablished friendly ties with Korea.
The idea that foreign expansion is stupid and not worth it was a cornerstone of Japanese policy during the Edo period. Tokugawa shogunate cut support to Japanese adventurers who established small enclave in Thailand and forbade them from entering Japan ever again. On multiple occasions, a plan to conquer Philippines was presented to the government by various magnates from Kyushu who wanted to enrich themselves, a plan that would most definitely succeed, given a very small armed Spanish presence there, but it was rejected every time.
Japan really had an extremely good opportunity to conquer Korea and parts of China while Qing was overtaking Ming. Hell, some Ming officials even escaped to Japan and were asking for military assistance. Likewise, Koreans hated Qing, viewing them as barbarians, and some sort of Japanese protectorate would perhaps be welcome; but the Tokugawa shogunate had absolutely no intention to be militarily involved in any manner.
When Japan eventually sought to defeat China and conquer Korea, it was after Perry's black ships and after the Meiji restoration, in a completely new and different geopolitical environment. Japan westernized, and sought to curry favour with westerners by antagonizing China - that was the primary intention of the 1st Sino-Japanese war; the crushing defeat Japan gave the weakened Qing was a big surprise to everybody, and Japanese influence over and eventual control of Korea was more or less a "happy coincidence", rather than something Japan desired from the start.
Japan has been and is often demonized as a warlike nation that got "civilized" by the USA after 1945; but that Japan actually recognized the foolishness of wars of expansion and lived in peace (at least compared the the west of the time) from 1600 to 1850, and became a warlike, expansionist nation in inspiration from and as a reaction to western imperialism ought to be remembered.
I agree with this view of the Imjin war and Edo period, and that the expansionist/colonial mindset largely started after the Meiji restoration, but question this interpretation of the intent of the 1st Sino-Japanese war. Do you have any references to suggest controlling Korea was not the intention of the 1st Sino-Japanese war? Why did Japan provoke and institute the Japan-Korea Treaty of 1876 long before the Sino-Japanese war?
@@cea6770Probably because of the Tsuchima incident when delivering letters...💀
I voted for an independent Hyderabad for the future Indian Partition video because it would be funny
8:23 looks too similar to the previous map. Kashmir valley for one is shown as Indian
You didn’t mention that the Northern Territory of Australia was partitioned between 1927 and 1931 at the 20th parallel - with the north section - “Northern Australia” - being governed from Darwin and the southern section - “Central Australia” - being governed from Alice Springs. In 1931 the seat of government became the Commonwealth (Federal) administration in Darwin - governing all the NT, until handing over to an elected NT Government in 1978. Yet even to this day, there are separate administrative divisions. E.g. the Northern police command in Darwin and the Southern command in Alice Springs - each headed by an Assistant Commissioner, whilst the NT police headquarters and training college is in Darwin, There’s also the Top End Health Service, covering Royal Darwin hospital and regional hospitals in Palmerston (outer Darwin), Katherine and Nhulunbuy; plus the Centralian Health Service covering Alice Springs Hospital and a regional hospital in Tennant Creek. There are also Top End and Centralian schools districts, similarly based in Darwin and Alice Springs - 1,300 kms or 900 miles (a 19 hour drive) or a 2 hour jet flight apart. (Kym in Palmerston, Darwin’s near-by kid-brother city (founded in the 80’s and now home to 40,000).
Australia invited New Zealand to join and become state way back at the start, but they rejected joining us. Also, I think in early 2000s New Zealand proposed joining currency but Australia rejected it.
Never forget the partitions of Poland! 😢
as someone who lived in the goldfields for most of their life, it is 100% more natural to say "the goldfields" than "goldfields" 4:01
South Australia did happen!!!!! It broke up and we got my home town (before I moved) Northern Territory!
I think you forgot Vietnam.....
Partitions of Hans island that almost happened
By the way fun fact many people say Bangladesh today became independent because Kashmir wasnt independent. The reason behind this saying is because of Kashmir, Pakistan gave more attention to the mainland instead of Bangladesh which made Bengalis more distant. If Kashmir became independent Pakistan would have used more resources to make sure East Bengal stayed within Pakistan
very cricky great video, mate
my best attempt at an australian accent
@@SuperGibaLogan you did great in my opinion
Finally he made the video like 3 years later
Under 2years…
Promise kept. (Sub kept.)
I think the iberian peninsula is to show relative size and latitude, as the southernmost area of western europe, to give settlers an idea of the weather, maybe?
If you dig a hole straight down from new zealand to the other side of the world, you'll end up in upside down iberia
never knew Oz had plans to be partitioned
Antartica
you missed a few more pacific and australian and new zealand partitions.
ooh ancient forerunner to current Korea
Very interesting
Why is part of Korea shown as under Chinese control in the map at 1:10?
Lots of presumptions go into "partitioning", in real life. The arrogance of drawing straight lines on maps is part of the urge of colonialism.
I wish USA and USSR left Korea pick there own leader, smh.
Any partition of Australia would inevitably bring War to our shores again.
What wait? No operation downfall and the hypothetical subsequent partition of Japan!?
Personally I believe Western Australia should be broken into two states across the 26th parallel, as its the only way the north will ever be fully developed with the wealth it generates.
Nice vid
Ming wouldn't have accepted any partition of Korea in any universe whatsoever. We laughed at Japan's desperate attempts to get something out of its disastrous campaign. Why would we let Japan have even and inch of Korea when they failed to take anything? To annex the other 3rd of it? We already had influence over ALL of Korea. Annexation was not Ming's style.
DID YOU INCLUDE the fact that Western Australia had a vote to become a seperate country and WON a 2/3 majority but it was swept under the rug over the feds paying for half on the Nullarbor railway line. Same during federation from memory. I believe TWICE they wanted to be a seperate country. Oh, and in the end, WESTERN AUSTRALIA are the rich ones but never show it. The eastern states build big and flashy and are DROWNING in debt. For the second time since 1990, the Victorian state government is close to bankruptcy
Found the fragile WA citizen 😂
Normally, when I vote in these polls, I try to be as realistic yet a bit wacky as possible. Now, I went for the chaotic answers :)
your asmr mic is making the video unwatchable for me please fix that because i like your videos
Another bit of India-related misinformation....
"Jammu and Kashmir was forcibly seized by both countries." This is not true at all, the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir signed the instrument of accession with India and officially joined India before the first Indian troops were airdropped into Kashmir. India specifically required this to avoid sending troops into what was at least nominally still an independent state, even if the intervention was requested by the ruler. India only sent forces into the state once it had become part of India. They did not forcibly seize anything.
On Pakistan's side, they claim that the fighters who advanced into Kashmir were from Pakistan's tribal areas, but the Pakistani government/military had no control over them, so if you believe Pakistan (I don't but still), they didn't forcibly seize Kashmir either. The Pakistani armed forces only formally advanced into Kashmir after the Indian troops were already there.
Again, this information is NOT hard to find and it takes very little effort and attention to detail to get it right. I'm not sure why you decided it was okay to half-ass the research, both here and in your dedicated Partition of India video. There are other videos on RUclips that get this exactly right - for example, you can check the 1947 Indo-Pak War video on the Cold War RUclips channel.
Wait, what about the potential plan to partition Japan after WW2?
Never considered, made after the war.
You left out the possible partition of Australia into French, Dutch, and British colonies. Also you should have mentioned the former partition of Vietnam into a communist North and a free South.
It wasn't partition but a civil war. Similar but not the same and no side really ever wanted partition scensrio wirh two Vietnams.
And it's similar case with China and Taiwan as weird and long this situation is. But Taiwan doesn't even pursues it's independence recognition too much aside from the obvious pushback from China and majority of countries siding with China on the matter. But that one aside, most of Taiwanese isn't looking for full on recognized independence and just prefer status quo to avoid any tension if possible.
@@andrzejnadgirl2029 True, it had aspects of a civil war but it was between two independent and internationally recognized countries. What is now one country used to be three: Annam, Tonkin, & Cochinchina, until they were conquered by France and amalgamated into one as part of France's Indochina colony. It was when France agreed to give up French Indochina, that the Vietnam part was temporarily partitioned until a government was formed. However the Viet Minh, supported by Russia and Red China, wanted a communist dictatorship while the southern regions wanted a multi-party republic. With no agreement, two SEPARATE countries were formed. The Viet Minh created the Viet Cong to destabilize South Vietnam until they could build up the North Vietnamese army enough to take over the south.
No that is the way the French divided Viet Nam to rule. Vietnam has been united for a century when the French divided it into three parts : Cochinchina full colony, Tonkin protectorate and An Nam which are left to be governed by the Vietnamese emperor but under overlordship by French Governor General. You are just wrong
Wait, are you named after Warrior Cats?!
when the ukraine war in august:
South America..!! You have left out partitions in South America.
Nope. I did both North and South America in the same video.
Had the Bengal thing passed, a United Kashmere would have been easier for India & Pakistan to accept.
Worst background music possible, it is almost designed to mask your voice. It could be mixed better but even then its not background music material.
My man.. how did you forget China? Granted, as you mention, it may be more alt-history than tangible proposals but the US virtually single-handedly prevented China from being carved up by the European colonial powers in a manner similar to Africa...
There weren't any official partition plans to include though.
Average De Facto Fan vs. De Jure Enjoyer… (idk)
You should do one for just the balkans 🤮
What I find fascinating about the 1838 Australia map is there appears to be a whole other fictitious island south of Australia no one is mentioning? Or is that supposed to signify something else?
I was here
Avg least delusional christian map be like
That piano is LOUD !
Nonsense i can barely hear it
The WA border is not straight
The projection curves it.
As a Korean I listened the first segment thoroughly perturbed tbh.
From the Hideyoshi being audacious(as on brand for him) to a point of demanding a member of the Ming royal successor to be wedded to his family, and 4 provinces of then Joseon, despite how his country were on the LOSING side of the war.
and to the implications of how Qing could have controlled the northern half of the peninsula had his ludicrous demands somehow went through. Though I don't think that would have still happened given their way of treating Joseon. They didn't mind as long as people of Joseon didn't extract ginseng from their homeland of Manchuria and had properly given their tributes. They didn't interfere with its internal politics despite how every aristocrat during that time were openly anti-Qing. Records say they were even reasonable during the Amnok-river territory dispute, as they listened to Joseon's positions carefully.
I just wanted to say that Japan likely sent that offer of splitting Korea when they still had the majority of Korea technically under there control during the first wave of the invasion, even reaching the Manchurian border and fighting some of the Manchus actually.
I will say though the idea of China and Japan somehow ending up in a royal marriage and thus a union of sorts sounds both crazy and very interesting lol
Well proposal made when japan still control southern part
경상도 믿거
Avg least delusional hindu map be like
We should partition Russia next.
Also return the Dutch Indies.
Not first
I Am From Bangladesh And If This 7:35 Happened Then My Country Would Be More Developed But Pakistani Rule And Then Indian Puppet Government's Made My Country Undeveloped
As a Pakistani I'm sorry bro😢
@@MuhammadThakur-si9ot Dude…you don’t need to be sorry for something that your government did 54 years ago
Avg least delusional muslim map be like
Avg least delusional christian map be like
Avg least delusional hindu map be like
@@James-zi5en Woah calm down muzzle
@@hikodzu Woah calm down chruzzle
@@hikodzu Woah calm down huzzle