Play Enlisted for FREE on PC, Xbox Series X|S and PS®5: playen.link/krauten2022 Follow the link to download the game and get your exclusive bonus now. See you in battle!
As a Chinese, I drew the opposite conclusion to your Chinese friend. Indeed, attempts to unify Europe failed but that of China succeeded explained the stark contrast between these societies. However, I think it is the the constant pressure of war that gave Europe its strength. From the middle ages through to WW2, the pressure of war necessitated technological development in order for European powers to stay relevant. In contrast, a united China gave rise to a group of decadent and corrupt aristocracy, undergoing cycles of internal conflicts over and over again, until they exhausted themselves only for an external power to take advantage of the situation and conquer them (e.g. Mongol and Manchurian), not unlike the late Roman history.
I personally think the best time for a singluar "civilisation state" to develop would have been the Napoleonic era. After industrialisation global spaning imperial empires simply couldn't coexist on the continent.
I view their is philosophical differences especially militarily between Europe, and China even during the Roman rule. Which is that generals in Europe only get respect by waging war and securing the loyalty of their soldiers with war loot aka winning wars constantly. Meanwhile the most respected generals in China are the strategic masterminds able to use the vast resources of the empire to perform impossible feats. Essentially Europeans know war by doing it, where as China strategizes to contain/ Control war.
I agree with your views to the letter, the constant pressure in europe motivated constant progress and advancement which led to europe advancing its technology and helped it catch up eventually, while china instead got all cozy and aristocratic resulting in it stagnating dispite initially being at the forefront in technological advancement.
@@neroatlas9121 It's honestly not that simple imo. There are any number of reasons why dynasties fall and they're not all interrelated. For instance, the Song dynasty, which fell to the Mongols, was economically and culturally powerful but militarily weaker than most Chinese dynasties that came before it. This was because the founder of the dynasty explicitly suppressed the military because he himself was a general who overthrew his emperor and was afraid of the same thing happening to him. Then in referring to the Ming, they were the ones who overthrew Mongol rule but were inspired by the Mongols to be more despotic and autocratic than traditional Chinese dynasties would've been. There's also the fact that significant technological knowledge was lost during the collapse of the Han dynasty which set China back who knows how long. And then there's the Qing who actually were complacent, but they also set China back in a lot of other ways, mostly in the way they pitted ethnicities within China against each other to maintain Manchu rule over the majority Han population. Some civilizational characteristic of "complacency" or whatever is simply way too simplistic to explain historical events and trends and honestly it reeks of orientalism imo.
I also subscribe to the theory that the constant pressure of war in Europe was what drove a lot of its technological development. For much of history in that part of the world, you'd quickly be conquered by some neighbouring kingdom if you didn't keep up. Parts of Asia didn't have this and China often dominated the entire region to the point everyone was basically a subsidiary of China, so war was a bit less constant. Japan even has periods of history where basically nothing happens for a couple centuries because of isolationism and the fact that it isn't exactly easy to invade since it's an island and much further from the main continent than Britain. Nothing happening and being left alone for even a single century is just something you'd never see in much of European history. Japan only caught up technologically because they didn't want to fall behind the growing European powers as well as the fact some European powers actually helped them catch up.
As a Chinese-American from Texas, I can confirm that referring to other nations as more backwards than us is just about the most Chinese thing we can do outside speaking Chinese.
As another Chinese American, I agree. Not sure if its akin to modern nationalism, but there is a huge amount of pride engrained in Chinese culture atleadt when talking about others. One of the things that came out of taling with some of my other ABC friends is "you dont call everyone around you a barbarian unless you have very tall towers and very thick walls". A favorite ancedote is that when the British first tried to negotiate with the Qing, the Qing ambassador spoke to him in Latin.
This reminds me of an essay by George Orwell called "Towards European Unity." Written after WW2 he says that now that the nuclear bomb was invented, there are only three paths forward: 1) Total nuclear war, end of civilisation, return to the stone age. 2) Emergence of three or four nuclear imperialistic superpowers that will divide the whole world between them and devolve into all-encompassing bureaucratic dictatorships (basically the premise of 1984) 3) Foundation of the European Union. It's an incredibly prescient piece of text. The biggest threats for this plan, he writes in 1947, will be: - The UK, who will always prefer it's cross-Atlantic ties and boycott any European plans that don't involve the USA. - Russia who will never let go of its imperialistic tendencies...
@@tefky7964 Yeah, incredibly accurate. Well except for the third threat: he predicted that Vatican will oppose EU as well. But as far as I see, Vatican doesn't give a crap. To be fair, Orwell wrote it before the 2nd Vatican council, which modernized the church and made it less political.
@@Posiman Because what we got as European Union, is not the European Union born out of the wish to have stabile peace. It uses its name, but it is the second option: 1984!
As an American, I found it really funny that the Chinese guy thought of the United States as a European mistake. I wouldn't say that he is wrong in that the US was definitely a failed British colonial policy, but I love the imagery of the rest of the world shaking their heads at the US and looking askance at the UK and the UK is like "I did my best..."
I knew he imagined Poland as a Federation in which Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine etc. are part of, with very high level of autonomy. But I didn't really know there was more to it.
the last time i heard the concept of intermarium (3 seas) mentioned was in a caspian report geopolitics video no idea it was formulated by pilsudski though
@@raxit1337 No. Not in that extent and not in such pervasive manner. Spaniards or French don't say they are roman. Heck, even the arabs didn't go that far.
@@Kaiyanwang82 The roman empire collapsed ages ago, of course Spaniards or French don't say they are roman. those areas were latinised by the romans though, they had completely distinct cultures before.
It's is very good video and very informative, but I want to point out 2 small mistakes. 1. When you mention boder co conflict between Poland and Czechosloviakia. The region - Cieszyn Silesia was majority Polish, exept the most western parts, which is shown in every population census at that time, even the Czech ones. Also this co conflict was not about taking the whole area, but about where to put the border. 2. Józef Piłsudski was not leader of First Polish Republic, but the second one. It's because in polish oficial name of our country lack the term republic (pl. republika) but we use term Rzeczpospolita - direct translation of Latin respublica into polish. Because oficial name of Polish-Lithanian Commonwealth was Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów, we refer to interwar Polish state as Second Rzeczpospolita.
Yeah, for 1. I can add that the contested area contained an important railroad junction connecting Prague and Moravia to Slovakia (one of the two existing at the time afaik), so it was an important strategic land for Czechoslovakia to obtain aside of the resource question. The capture of this junction was also given as a reason of the Polish annexation of the region in 1938 as it would, besides settling old disputes, improve Polish security in case of an invasion from the West.
@@xenamorphwinner7931 No, the direct translation of Rzeczpospolita is Republic, or Commonwealth. That's why the First Polish Republic is often referred to, as Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, or the Commonwealth of the Two Nations. The second one is commonly used in Poland (Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów)
Nobody asks that question as if they did, it would lead to asking further questions that would dismantle their presuppositions and force them re-evaluate their beliefs. This is something people don't tend to do willingly.
I find the Chinese perspective on Europe fascinating, mostly on the view of Rome. That it was a stabilizing force that tragically failed rather than an imperial Empire of its time that had great achievements but also caused much suffering. "They made a desert, and called it peace." comes to mind. I think it shows reading history from another culture it's not necessarily correct to read it like your own history, history rhymes but it's not the same.
As a Chinese, the way I interpret such infatuations we have for Rome stem from this: a powerful centralized state with a well maintained governing apparatus, strong army, influential high culture and language, evokes parallels to our first golden age, the Qin-Han dynasties. This lionized imagery of a strong dynasty ruled over by wise emperors is praised and alluded to not only in political pieces of later dynasties, but also ingrained into our historical and literary traditions, the Chinese utopia, in a sense.
@@TheLivetuner There was that feeling of nostalgia for the Roman Empire as well but as time has gone on sympathy for it has lowered, as historians have been more critical of them. Particularly how their empire conquering mirrors European imperialism. Rome as a society is looked back on more critically as the years go on.
@@khanhnguyen-tt3ff “The Mandate of Heaven” is a misleading English translation, as it was largely a secular idea represented using mystic language. It all comes down to honouring morality and political justification, there is really nothing religious about it in practice, thus the CCP isn't doing away with it entirely, just further eliminating whatever remains of the mysticism and the characteristic tied with dynastic structure.
As an American in Switzerland (it happens) I would like to share a story. When I first came for my job interview the HR lady asked me why I wanted to move out there. My response was that I have wanted to live in Europe for a very long time. Her follow-up: "Then why do you want to come to Switzerland?" At the time I laughed it off, but after 4 years of living there and watching this video, I see her point. EDIT: Looking back, probably the best response would have been, "Well, it's a lot closer!" 😂
@@arturodiazcoca7408 Yes, but it's painfully neutral. Switzerland isn't in the Union, so it doesn't quite have the same benefits people would get from living in a country that is part of the EU. Pretty sure they also developed their culture completely differently from their neighbors, but that could be wrong
@@RiverRina what do you mean painfully lmao. They are the only sane ones who practice neutrality instead of warmongering because muh demucracy and europoor values are under threat lol.
@@RiverRina I would not call it completely different by any means, though by a quirk of history they managed to build a state and fierce national identity without basing it on language or really anything more than their security interests having pulled them together into a confederation. This has made Switzerland an inspiration for European Federalists in the past.
@@feastguy101 It's probably because Turkey before Ataturk and now after Ataturk is just another middle eastern (culturally) authoritarian theocracy, so the genius that was Ataturk often gets forgotten sandwiched between those periods.
@@viysnjor4811 Middle Eastern Theocracy... Erdoğan uses religion for politics. But Turkey is still a secular country. And trust me when I say this, the removal of secularism from the constitution would create a popular uprising. Same with the Kemalist ideology, Atatürk is pretty much still respected in Turkey (Even in the majority of Erdoğan supporters for some reason). What Turkey is experiencing is the possible future for Poland and Hungary. And they are not middle eastern last time I checked. Erdoğan's advantage is that he started earlier to corrupt the supreme court and military and has a much tighter grip to those than PiS or Orban currently has. You can say that we don't have an European culture. Sure. But we are not Arabs as well. The inclusion of Turkey to the Middle Eastern countries does not have any valid reason.
Ah man the ataturk/turkey videos on this channel are so good. Literally "what if all the american founding fathers were fused into ONE PERSON" and BAM you have Ataturk
@@Devillunar I understand the difference between Turks and Arabs, but Middle Eastern does not default to "Arab" either, anymore than saying a country has a "European" culture means they are Germanic. The issue is that modern Turkey has nothing in common with European nations, and instead far more in common with Middle Eastern ones (or Belorus/Russia) since Erdogan is an increasingly religious presidente-for-life type of figure.
This was very good! It's actually the best liberal response to realism from the European point of view - the fact that you can create what in our language is a Great Power which's rational self interest is internal cooperation. Now, it remains to be seen if countries will actually move in this direction (and there are reasons to doubt it, mainly that individual members would need to surrender various form of self interest), but if successful, a cooperative model could pretty much, as you put it, be the "death of Empire." It's a very ambitious project but if it succeeds it would be a very good thing.
It would only be the death of sovereign empire. Capital is very much an empire in its own right, but of a much different and ultimately more powerful kind.
In many ways the EU represents the best attempt, so far, at bringing about the "Death of Empire" and it is interesting to note that the two countries most struggling with this in the past two decades, Hungary and the UK, are either (Hungary) shouting a lot but never really putting their money where their mouth is, or (UK) putting their money where their mouth was and finding out within the last few years what a stupidity that was while now facing a situation they'd prefer to undo but that can't be undone (internally or externally) as easily as it was to leave the EU. The UK experiencing that a modern-day Ireland backed by its EU siblings is in many ways more influential, and more ... 'sovereign', than a post-imperial UK on its own was very educational.
@@frankwitte1022 Leaving the sinking ship that is the EU was certainly the right choice. The problem is, the political and financial elite who control the UK do not agree, and made sure to sabotage the exit process. This can be seen from the flailing ineffectiveness of every administration, post-Cameron, in actually implementing Brexit. Leaving was not a mistake, entrusting the process to those who have all the incentive to stay was.
@@zerologic7912 I think it's best to not confuse and confound matters by mixing them, it only makes finding solutions harder in the end. What I mean in this is, is that the argument that the EU seems like one of current best efforts against one of the elements of empire. That other elements exist should not stand against this, if one can't take step forwards then how would one ever reach the goal after all? Beyond that it's probably important to always keep in mind what capital really is and is really about. It's not about empire in the end after all, instead it is about the gathering of resources so one can do larger projects with it, be these factories, canals, railways, social services, etc. All of these require more 'capital' in the most abstract real meaning of the word then any single person can gather. But in the end this just means you need to be able to gather resources for larger projects as well, it says nothing about how such should be gathered, used or controlled. There's no rule a single individual must control it after all, many alternate forms exist like quite large non-profit organizations that say run a theme park quite successfully. I suspect it is examples like these that might help in your apparent goals to escape what happens when enormous amounts of capital are controlled by but a single person. Though I'll admit I'm guessing at your goals and all there, so I can but hope it is of some help for you.
As an American, I have always had a very vague understanding of the European Union, but always wondered at (and got confused when trying to learn) anything more about it. As per usual, Kraut has managed to make a detailed and yet comprehensive video that has established a basic premise of the topic without shoehorning in too much personal opinion, and in turn, has made it significantly easier to understand. More excellent work from an excellent creator.
Completely agree with you. I also really liked that @Kraut explained the historical development of the EU, I was very important (and necessary) for a silly American like myself.
@@monkeyseatcatfood He negates to mention the fact that unfettered immigration has led to brexit also, due to massive increases in terrorism, grape and murder on our streets not to mention the pushing of Islamic culture across our nation.
Basically a gang. theres big China over here, and big USA over there. and some big powerful corporations creeping around. and russia is drunk again. im small, youre small, we're all small, so lets form up into one big force. so nobody can fck with us. and thats the eu. then suddenly .... ' yes but i deserve two slices of cake 🍰 because im Britain and im better than everyone and if you don't give me my two slices ill leave, theres probably more, and better cake outside anyway' - CLUNK. Adios. and that was brexit.
As a Georgian, I want to thank you for your wonderful channel and encourage you to continue portraying Georgia as a European nation (and a part of European history), which is critical for Georgians' self-perception.
From Portugal, I can tell you that I’ve always seen Georgians to be Europeans as a matter of course. Our maps show the Caucasus countries as being in Europe, and what I’ve seen of Georgia points to it being an European nation in all aspects. Can’t say the same of Russia. My opinion of Russia was never very positive, but it completely nosedived after their invasion of Georgia. Further history as only confirmed that negative view. My best wishes for Georgia, and my hope that you will eventually be able to liberate the unredeemed portions of your territory that were cut of you at gunpoint by the machinations of an evil imperial power.
It seems pretty obvious to me that Georgia should be considered European. But I guess when one is out near the edges of what is politically considered the European continent one might at times feel a bit less certain if everyone further towards the center actually agrees. Best of luck to Georgia though, it's certainly not in the easiest of positions right now, hopefully it can handle it all with out to much trouble.
@@feastguy101 I agree that Georgians are Europeans and while I'm not a fan of Russian aggression, that does not make their people non-European. Also let's not pretend that Georgia was some pure innocent victim, Abkhazians have a right to self-determination, their people have gone through enough suffering by Russian and Turkish empires, they don't need Georgian colonisation. Though I will say I am mixed on South Ossetia, Not trying to start a fight, just saying that too many rush to hate Russia blindly and anyone associated with them, but it's far more common that Russia uses people in difficult situation. Look at Armenians, Russia has them trapped, with Turkey and Azerbaijan constantly lobbying the EU and US if Armenia leaves the Russian sphere they will be isolated and possibly annihilated by an increasingly aggressive Aliyev regime. So yes Russia is an imperial power that cut that land away from Georgia, but blindly giving it back to Georgia in a heartbeat would not make the conflict that Abkhazians and Ossetians have with the central Georgian government go away, and Tbilisi to this day has shown no interest in any dialogue or appeasement. Important to remember that Stalin, who was a Georgian, ended the Abkhazian Soviet Socialist Republic and forced it to be a part of Georgia as an "autonomous" republic.
@@feastguy101 "Caucasus countries" were either part of Iran, Turkey or Russia for more than a thousand years. To say they are a part of Europe is to tacitly claim Iran and Turkey are European countries, which is a laughable claim.
Man, this video is amazing. As a Ukrainian, I would definitely say, that the post-colonial future where Ukraine (and our bro Poland in no lesser sense) stop being the PVP zone for European/worldwide conflicts would be a nice change
I think that for a long time now, generally all slavic people have been the pvp zone for european/world wide conflitcs, the “europeans” have never likad us, we were always lower people, exploitable and living on land that was good for food, had its good resources and most importantly we have always been a border to Asia. Guarding Europe from Ottomans, Mongols and other invaders, and also preventing other europeans going to Asia. Also a unified tight connection between all slavic tribes was a big threat to them, as we are great in numbers and surface area, even before Russia expanded so far east. Sadly i don’t think we will ever get our peace
With Poland though I'm more worried about it taking over Russia's role as the imperial power of the region and starts to compete with Russia to dominate Ukraine. Democracy in Poland is starting to break down and the EU is not doing very well to correct it. I think Poland represents the modern EU better than any other member so integrating them is critical.
You - Ukrainians - have made it absolutely clear where you want to belong. No other nations paid with many lives for the wish to join the EU. It's shame on us that we didn't notice this, and act fast enough.
First day of my Western History class in college, the teacher asked us "What is Europe", and proceeded to spend the next semester trying to give a good answer to that question
And this is why the EU is doomed to failure. There is no unifying "European Identity". The only undeniably true definition of Europe is a geographic one.
As a Czech allow me to point out a few things: 1. The Slovak language would only fully form in the 19th century while there was an ongoing debate whether it was a dialect of Czech or its own separate language. But it had been deemed that the Slovaks are in fact a distinct nation with a distinct language decades before the Austro-Hungarian empire's collapse. 2. There were Slovaks such as Ján Kollár who saw unity with Czechs as a bridge towards a pan-Slavic solidarity which in turn was a bridge towards global humanism. 3. Slovaks were deemed to be unable to defend their own independence from Hungary, making Czechoslovakia itself a practical necessity more than anything else. 4. The idea of "Czechoslovakism" was then put forward for a specific purpose which was to outnumber the more than 3 million Germans living on the Czech territory. That's why it never appeared again after WWII, since almost all of the Germans got deported as part of the post-war settlement.
You know... I wonder about this. Slovak language was pretty much unified due to Štúr in the 19th century when he Used the central Slovak dialect as the bench mark. However even to this day you can see a gradient from west of Cz to its east... And then from west of SK to its east. Where the regions between the two seem to overlap a little. Thus my idea here is this... If Slovak were not have been reformed by Štúr and the 3 Slovak dialects had remained intact... Would this gradient from Czech Republic to Slovakia be more obvious? After all Moravian Czech is easier and more akin to Slovak than bohemian one, and the region of Moravia called Slovacko is even more similar... Almost like a true blend sometimes. So.. in Theory... If this reform didn't happen and if Slovak dialects weren't diminished the Hungarian influence (which was part of the alarm for Štúr) .... Would czechoslovakia and the idea of Czechoslovak national unity be stronger and more possible? After all a level unity or at least strong Kinship/brotherhood was always there since Great Moravia really.
I have no idea about slovak/czech relations so I will not spew nonsense, but I do know enough that his comparison with serbia/montenegro is so off, it cannot even be taken seriously. there are so many issues with this video and obvious as well as not so obvious reasons how everything happened the way it happened, a lot of things simplified, biased/ignorant perspective, people really should put their noses in some history books instead of watching frauds like Kraut. there are many like him, I guess it's an overall internet phenomenon.. no wonder people don't know sh1t about history and claim a lot of things that could not be further from the truth. cheers
Czech an Slovak sound very distinct to me as a Pole. I understand Slovaks fairly well, and Czech not so much. So for me it feels like those are clearly separate languages. As for your pint 2. Piłsudski wished Czechoslovakia as a part of his pan-Slavic federation so those seems to be convergent views between him and Kollár
As an American, you’re spot on the money about the European Union existing to prevent war. It’s one of the reasons that the US government has been fairly consistently pro-EU. Because WWI and WWII taught us that if Europe starts having a major war, the US will inevitably get dragged into it eventually. So anything that helps prevent another massive European land war is good for us too.
Ha its questonable. Until Nixon US were for EU, after him they realize EU could be a competitor to their economy and also an ally with its own will. Many problems exist in relationships between us. Look at the videos history of eu american ralations by TEPSA I think and another why are eu us relations broken
America was never "forced" into any war. In the first world war, america wasn't willing to deal with the compromises that were imposed by a major european land war. They didn't want to limit trade and civilian movement between continents. The second world war was mainly a self-fulfilling prophecy imposed by US management of the situation in Asia. Both wars also had major anglophile factions that were very influential in the entry of America, especially in the first world war.
Thanks for explaining France's unique position in the union. I keep hearing geopolitical analysts talk about France as an outlier but never understood why until now.
France is one of the only European nations to have a large-scale military presence in Africa in fact if I remember correctly France only just recently withdrawn a majority of military units in Mali.
@@celestialorb1680 France has continued to practice neo colonialism to this day. When Britain and France decolonised, France forced the newly formed countries into subservient contracts. This was most successful in Africa and is why France continues to interfere there.
@@jgw9990 France buy there ressources instead of China or Russia, it's France who give these ressources value as they will never use them if France stop buying ressources in Africa by making nuclear fusion in the 2050's the locals won't start building nuclear reactors the next day it's a win win situation both for France, the EU and African countries.
I love Europe as a romanian. Its a way for us to understand that we can win a lot more if we can cooperate instead of fighting one another as it has been the case for thousands of years. The EU isnt perfect however it has shown that it can still keep going despite the obstacles and crises.
Certainly isn't perfect, but it seems like a good idea and ideal to try and work on for now. Can't say I see much hope in the alternatives at least, none of those I've heard of seem to have nearly as much prospects to keep things peaceful and prosperous. If world peace could be achieved eventually via a method like this in time as well, one can but try at least I think.
@@schtreg9140 No hard feelings, it's just politics, and you don't need to apologize. We retaliated and OMV profits were smashed by a tax introduced last week(Some billions) and Austrian banks are losing big. Austria did not win anything by doing this and lost a lot and it will continue to lose.. I mean, we have the biggest untapped oil and gas resources in the area, and until December you guys were the main partners in this win-win situation, and when I say win-win I am also speaking about bilateral high-level corruption.
Props to you for putting Atatürk in an objective light, and not be heavily skewed like how generally people see him. If Turkey has any differences from other Middle Eastern nations, it's all thanks to his work be it 20% economic growth rates or dramatically increasing the literacy rate of the country by introducing Latin letters. Granting workers and women rights as well.
@@RandomGuy-df1oy Ottoman Empire itself was not the most heavy handed with religion because it was a multiethnic empire with several religious groups and practitioners. Modern day Turkey being the centre of power under the Ottomas, and the direct offspring of the empire, it also inherited this relatively liberal temperament.
Really like this video. How the European project evolves is going to be rather interesting. Hopefully it is something that adapts & becomes a framework for other regions to consider.
Fantastically clever and well-written video. One note at 18:30 : Piłsudzki was the leader of the Second Polish republic, not the first. The first would be what English speakers refer to as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The words "Commonwealth" and "Republic" are one and the same in Polish
As an American dealing with a nationalist right wing refusing to acknowledge that America has become a backwards place. And in order to remedy that backwardness we must embrace European social democracy.
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 here is the problem they refuse to acknowledge why it is declining. I.e allowing a massive rich poor divide that concentrates the vast majority of the wealth in the top 10 percent. Leading to an erosion of the power of the people to influence politics.
@@khai96x >Be Chinese > Open an English video >Write a comment in Chinese even though I speak English because otherwise why would I watch an English video >Provide no translation >Leave
A game theory observation; the importance of the rituals that kraut talks about is that they build trust and thereby make reciprocity possible. This makes it possible for national cooperation to become a positive sum game, which it seems the influence sphere/ imperialist view fails to recognise and consequently missed out on
"Europeans can meet the challenges of the coming century only by pooling their efforts. We are convinced that what they need is one Europe - peaceful and democratic, a Europe that maintains all its diversity and common humanistic ideas, a prosperous Europe that extends its hand to the rest of the world. A Europe that confidently advances into the future." ---Mikhail Gorbachev
Indeed and I think what we need to do above all is avoid nihilism. Europe is not perfect and has many, many problems to work out that won't be easy to resolve. However we need to keep our trust in the EU and that if we all work hard we can resolve these conflicts. That for every problem there is a solution and if there isn't we can find a way to work around it or deal with it. The biggest threat to Europe is actually internal far right policies that threaten to tear the culture of cooperation apart. We shouldn't have delusions that it will be an easy thing or that no sacrifices will be needed. However we should keep the faith that we are all strong enough and wise enough to make it happen. Far right politics feed off of nihilism and that the only way to improve ourselves is to tear others down.
Wow, what perfect timing! We just did a video on the empty chair crisis which was a really formative experience for modern Europe. Great video as usual!
That's because you're not Chinese. It's like an American viewing European history from an American perspective or an Inuit viewing Chinese history from their perspective.
The Warring States/Spring and Autumn periods are a massive element of the Chinese cultural myth. The narrative goes that the major Chinese project of the first millennium B.C. was in finding a common bedrock. The Han identity and the Confucian societal model are seen as the legacy of that effort, and they're the reason China is such an anti-fragile entity today: China cares first and foremost about its own unity and security. You can see the same attitude in their modern "assimilation projects" in Tibet and Xinjiang, with those regions being deemed of paramount geopolitical importance to Han security. That's why they're willing to risk the bad PR that comes with cultural genocide these days.
@@Boretheory Yeah most people, especially people politically apathetic or not all that interested in history, don't tend to think this way, but plenty of people DO think this way about the Roman Empire, and Europeans themselves have thought about Europe this way probably from the fall of Rome. Charlemagne had a whole restoration of Rome in the West going on precisely because there was a desire for that. The Roman Church has attempted to keep the fragmented Europe under it united as much as it could too. The Renaissance really brought back nostalgia for antiquity as well. The more anti-imperial peace and unity idea is comparatively much newer, maybe only 500 or 600 years, only really taking off in the last 300, compared to the imperial peace which has existed since Rome and was still present as a motivation in the Napoleonic Wars.
I love that someone is finally addressing that the French Empire still exists. With all the racism, abuse, exploitation and military intervention that French West Africa has suffered.
Nothing says colonialism like sending an expeditionnary force to Mali to save the country from falling apart and being overtaken by jihadis, loosing dozens of good frenchmen in the process, investing millions to rebuild the Malian army, permanently setting up bases in the desert to make sure that they'll never come back, only to be booted out of the country a few years later because the local junta decided they were going to use the evil white soldier as a scapegoat for anything going sour, and just leaving without sending any kind of bill whatsoever. Meanwhile our soldiers were fighting for their country, their youth obviously kept running away from it and illegaly immigrating en masse to France. And they just never thanked us for anything whatsoever. Damn, I guess we really are a shit empire.
i love how portugal is having this back to back appearance at the very ends of the videos with their international ideas that i really hope aren't somehow linked to lusotropicalism
No I think it’s much more to do with geography. Like kraut pointed out in the Danube video there ought to be an EU cooperative block aiming to promote Atlantic trade with Portugal, Ireland, Iceland and the UK as they are separated from the Rhine, Danube, Baltic and Mediterranean regions.
Portugal is a periferic country in the European settings so we tend to look to the oceans and trade there. Sure it's easy with the Portuguese speaking countries but we tend to keep past trade partners (India, Indonesia, Japan, etc) to promote peace and trade. Lusotropicalismo was a last effort to make the Portuguese empire survive past the ww2 and cold war
@@avet4952 it's discontent with the politics and a lack of connection between the general public and political parties. Check partys like Volt Portugal IL or Livre more modern than the tradicional and not so extreme
no, these unions between Hispanic-Americans and Portuguese-Americans always end up with Brazil having to have the external responsibility of a Germany without German resources, in the end this MercoSul only means that we have to support the socialist dictatorship of South America and throw the our people in the hole, we should put all these projects, especially peso-real far away from here
@@sabianaum7263 because policies between South American countries are quite erratic and tend to change a lot between governments That is why the Central American countries and Mexico end up revolving in the orbit of influence of the US or China, because South America is too unstable
@@armandoventura9043it is not like Europa was that much stable at that time. This kind of political projects require decades, maybe generations, it is a long process but not at all impossible. You must start from somewhere, Latin America has to stop to be the puppet of some imperialistic narcissistic nation.
Being friends with people you disagree with is fun. No need to filter your opinions, no fear of echo chambers, monotony-breaking conflicts on demand...
Is it common in European education to overlook the bloodshed of the Interwar Period? The California educational system of the mid-2000s that I learned modern history in very strongly emphasized that the Interwar conflicts were nothing less than a run-up to World War II. It was an explosion of nation-states but was never characterized as a golden age of anything. Except maybe silent expressionism.
From my own experience (French public education), we are mainly taught about the post WW1 trauma and the rise of totalitarian nations, not much else. In general Eastern Europe history is barely touched upon. I'm assuming nationalists took their vision of a golden age of sovereign state from their own bottom, altough I'm far from knowlegable on their rethoric.
It would be hard to generalise about "European education" because every European country has a completely separate education system. For me personally as a Brit, it wasn't discussed much if at all even though I studied history, but that's only because my history course didn't cover that period. Also your channel is incredibly good, easily one of the best history channels on the website especially given how little attention the topics you cover get elsewhere.
In the Netherlands, we tend to focus on our own history and those of our close neighbours. It's mostly about being scared shitless about what was happening during WWI and to mostly zoom in on all the factors that led to the NSDAP claiming power post-WWI and then WWII, the occupation and a few other events. We were taught nothing about the Interwar Period in Eastern Europe.
В России мы это проходим просто потому что это настолько нас касалось что это невозможно упускать. Жаль только что все больше и больше в наших учебниках оправдывают белогвардейцев.
wow thank you for the great summary and over all view on the topic. I am Hungarian, and I always wondered why there were no reconciliations between Hungary and neighbouring countries, even tough I tought it would be beneficial for all of us. Sadly Not many of us Hungarians understand the EU, and why its there, hopefully in the future this can change.
We did have some official reconciliation with Serbia and compared to 20 years ago Hungarian relations with Slovakia and Romania are steadily improving. Governmental cooperation has been very well and the younger generations are less concerned about past grievances. (Schengen and the Internet probably helped a lot here). Most far right troublemakers are relatively fringe with a small size loud bark and are usually funded by Russia. The only country Hungary has a real problem with is Ukraine, because the Ukrainian officials can't help themselves but behave like dicks. It doesn't help that from a Hungarian point of view Ukrainians and Russians are seen as the same, both are just slightly different sounding Soviets.
As I like to say to all Romanian and Hungarian nationalists, there are more people living in 2 Asian cities than there are Hungarians and Romanians on the planet. The feud is pathetic, we were besties until 1848.
@@DerDop I agree. our division only makes it easier for the west and Russians to control us. If we work together we actually have a chance to build something decent.
There were and are. The tripoint (hármashatár) at Rajka is a very good example of this. It is a point where the borders of Austria, Slovakia and Hungary meet. There are no walls, barbed wire or checkpoints. There is only a triangular table where the borders intercept. The problem is 1) the continued presence of large Hungarian ("hostage") minorities in the successor states and 2) it is politically expedient for these countries to cynically exploit the animosity. In Hungary, the remembrance of past grievances is kept continuously alive by the both nationalist provocation from neighbouring nationalist movements, and the constant stories of mistreatment of Hungarian minorities. This can be exploited for political gain, because it creates a "Hungary vs the world" kind of separatist mentality. This mentality then _demands_ rituals celebrating the historical Greater Hungary and the condemnation of the current status quo. Then, on the other side, Hungarians remembering Trianon is exploited by the neighbours as they overreact to the smallest of gestures (last thing was Orban wearing a scarf with the picture of Greater Hungary) because by presenting an external enemy and especially an internal threat (the Hungarian minorities), cynical politicians can energise their electorate. The way out would be: Joint effort by all parties to emphasise the meaninglessness of borders in Europe (sadly can't happen with Orban fighting his war of independence against Brussels...) Joint effort by all parties to downplay the real historic atrocities they suffered (not lying about them, just stop mentioning them all the time) Hungary must stop the victim narrative (prevailing narrative is that Hungary was the defender of Europe against the Turks, but was then betrayed and thrown to the wolves by the West after WW1) The neighbours must stop overreacting to minor gestures and must stop pretending Hungary has any capacity to threaten their territorial integrity (especially when it's now the poorest nation in the EU after Bulgaria and has its hands busy by trying not to collapse)
I think it is also worth pointing out that the United States, while being an Empire, is also kind of a case of political cooperation between groups towrds a common goal: the United States is not just a branding thing, and that while the Federal government has a lot of power, we have a lot of individual states within us that have more power than is sometimes acknowledged.
Additionally, the United States's international relations position works as a formwork of cooperation for North America. In true Monroe Fashion, this network of cooperation extends towards the Pacific with Guam, A. Samoa, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan -- plus the 'Indo-Pacific Economic Framework'.
Nice video as always. I completely agree with you that the EU should be seen as the prototype of the model for the post-colonial world Thanks from Ukraine for your content and Happy New Year
Calling the EU post-colonial is laughable. The members abuse their membership to pressure trading partners, especially in Africa, into unfavorable deals. The EU is not post-colonial, it is neo-colonial.
“The worst thing that ever happened to west Africa was the fall of the *Malian* empire.” I’ve often thought that a similar argument to the one made at the start about Rome could also be made about the west African region and the Malian empire.
@@eliasstenman3710 I see your point but in my mind Songhai is to Mali as Byzantium is to Rome. Some may disagree but I still view mail as being at the core and height of the Sehalian and west African imperial system.
it's interesting how that chinese viewer looks at the EU positively as a multipolar middle ground in between the US and China, when I know many Americans who view the EU positively in a similar manner but in the exact opposite direction, with the EU being an American aligned power with its democratic values.
I have the impression that France is not only using its African sphere of influence to increase its power in the EU, but is also using the EU to strengthen its African sphere of influence. The EU also has increasing centralist tendencies. If centralism in the EU prevails, the EU will become an instrument of imperial politics. For example, 40% of EU citizens could outvote the remianing 60% (this is how elections typically look) and send the future EU army to Africa.
You hit on something that I cut out of the video to finish it faster. It is in fact a valid political concern in modern Europe. Spanish, German, Dutch, and Belgian troops, assisted France in its military mission in Mali. An assistance that was granted due to French influence over both Africa and political influence in the E.U. And it raises an issue that should be discussed: Should European troops fight the wars of a singular European state? In particular, if these wars are not even defensive?
Could you explain how 40% of eu citizens could out vote 60%, from my understanding that could only happen under the electoral system like first past the post which i think the uk is the only one in europe to use.
@@Kraut_the_Parrot well, it was also because intervention in Mali had overwhelming public and political support in both Europe and across West Africa. The immediate success of the intervention was undermined by Mali overthrowing her own government (with the benefit of hindsight it's clear that Wagner were involved earlier than previously thought), but the fact remains that all of France's African allies, including the Malian government, and European participants in the intervention, had popular support across the board.
@@Victorvondoom9159 It doesnt quite elect proportionally. Smaller countries generally have more representatives pr. voter as a way to keep the EUP from becoming dominated by the countries with the largest populations in Europe. I assume this is what is being refered to.
As a Colombian, We should be one block, from Rio Bravo to Patagonia, united and collaborative! Europeans showed the world that it is possible to ve together while independent
Yeah i think that south american union would have much more sense than african union for example, and the big bonus would be the lgge that, at least foe the official ones are not as diverse as european or african ones, a lot of things would be much simpler and easier to do, and that union could wield some real power, but for that national countries, their elites would need to lose some power internally, that could be a problem, but overall it makes sense.
South American countries, however, suffer from grave political problems and instability dating back to decades - if not centuries - and until each individual country can solve those problems, a union of South American countries would be only like a dozen very sick men pretending they're one healthy person. Also, the effects of the Venezuelan diaspora show that in the event of a Schengen-like union of South America, the resulting displacement of people would be severely unequal and uncontrolled and it would destabilize more regions than it would improve. Besides, in many ways, the continent was already united - under the influence of Brazilian corporations, which for decades steered the domestic policies of entire Latin American countries and put in and removed government officials across the region as they pleased.
@@stalwartarjuna True, just as Europe had too, for millennia even. Didn't stop them to get over them and change their ways. The difference between Europe and us is that we already know that it is possible and it works. So thanks, fellow Europeans, for being trailblazers!
Estoy totalmente de acuerdo, pero los problemas politicos por los quales pasamos son muy grandes para permitir algo similar a la UE. Tenemos que cambiar mucho antes de todo eso
Hello Kraut, I'm glad that you finally started talking about Czechoslovakia in the context of Europe's history. However there are some statements that I disagree with/would like to comment on or are incorrect and I would like to point them out. I have seen some comments about some of the topics that I want to mention already and therefore I will most likely repeat what was mentioned already (also for context I'm Czech): 1. 6:56 the reason for Czechoslovak-Polish war at least from Czechoslovak perspective was for the control of Cieszyn/Těšín and the railway line on the left bank of the river Olza. Also there was the problem of Silesia being located in 3 separate states and most of Silesians (to my knowledge) were Poles at that time which gave Poles the justification to go into that war (tho the economic factor cannot be dismissed). Funny fact: I have seen some reports mentioning that to this day there are some Silesians in Poland who would like to have their own state. A state of Silesia. 2. 7:38 I think that good name/label for self limiting nationalism would be patriotism tho I understand that the waters would be somewhat muddied by existence of American patriotism. Also I think that drive/desire to dominate other nations by nationalism stands from the believe in their superiority over other nationalities and that self limiting nationalism doesn't have this desire because it doesn't see other nationalities as somehow inferior. It is instead replaced by the pride in ones nation to the extend that others might and should do the same, ie. its own nation is good but not necessarily better than any other nation. 3. 8:24 Never in my life have I heard that Slovaks were somehow part of Czech nation or that they should. The concept of Czechoslovakia simply came from necessity. At the time of the creation of the first Czechoslovak republic both Czechs and Slovaks had large minorities of Sudetens Germans in case of Czechs and Hungarians in case of Slovaks in their territories respectively and since Czechs and Slovaks were basically brothers, they could cooperate together and therefore lessen the ability of these minorities to destabilize the newly created state. It was to make it more paletable to the winners of the WW1 to allow them to create state for Czechs and Slovaks (also the size of such a state was a factor in case of new conflicts). There is a reason why the dissolution of Czechoslovakia happened so peacefully because Czechs never saw Slovaks as part of the same nation nor necessarily state and why Slovaks took the chance to create their own separate state after Czechia became the German Protectorate. Also I would like to mention George of Poděbrady (Jiří z Poděbrad) and his idea of proto European union/OSN. The idea was that conflicts between member states were to be solved peacefully and unite European states/kingdoms against the Turk expansion. Anyway, the video is good as always and it was still insightful. Can't wait for the next one.
Hello Zeit Geist, everyone and every nation has its spin on the europe and the EU. But the fact, that poles, czech and germans can have discussion about Silesia without getting violent is an achievement in itself. The fact that all former sowjet occupied states accept their borders is something you dont see in other parts of the world.
@@adamz7038 And some of our older generation as well. Accepting the "Oder-Neisse-Line" was a big step for many "displaced" . Hungarians, damn they havent raided us german for at least 800years. While defeating the french laid the foundation of the german empire, defeating the hungarians was the foundation of the holy roman empire. If you do Gruesse, go full German, Grüße^^ The "ß" makes the difference between german german and swiss german.
Yeah. The third point surprised me as well. I am a Czechoslovak child, so I spent my childhood in both countries and I have never encountered a serious claim about Slovaks being part of Czech nation. Language is different, also religious identity is much more important in Slovakia than it is in Czechia. Plus the folklore is different. Talking about nations in Central/Eastern Europe I would also like to remind people about Rusyns and their unfortunate fate, there is a high number of them in the eastern parts of Slovakia.
My favorite joke about the UN is by the onion. I can remember it’s direct quote but it goes like: “UN increases training of peace soldiers to properly watch Genocides”
I must say that i am increasingly relieved and enjoying it when I see posts and videos that neither fear complexity and oversimplify, nor hide behind some form of codified language. It takes time to explain things. Leaving things open that are open and for discussion or the future to show. Well done! Also it's great to see less known figures from history that may not have had a brilliant success but simply hit the core of the problem or found some interesting (albeit mystified and romanticised) perspective and picture to see things. One needs to be very careful though with this European cooperation, welfare and prosperity thing. There is still another perspective that the EU may not bring peace in: in-vs-out, and have-lots vs have-nots and the asymmetry in political influence.
As someone who’s first major political involvement was Brexit some grand RETVRN TO EMPIRE was absolutely not what drove people to vote leave. The only people claiming that were schitzos and remainers insisting that the Leavers wanted that. What got people’s back up more than anything was first the closed off clique of politicians commission that made all the laws that would be voted on and contained some very unpopular figures (unpopular in both Europe and the UK, if Von der Linde being burnt in effigy by the Bunderswehr was anything to go by) and the wasteful way certain things in the EU were done Then being fobbed off in negotiations by an EU that didn’t understand that Brexit was a large political movement (with most political parties promising a referendum as a major vote winner) confirmed in many people’s minds the EU wasn’t willing to change or take genuine anger at the situation seriously. Anyone but British people having legislative power of the UK was always going to be a hard sell. The UK also saw the EU’s movement towards centralised control as little more than an attempt to make the USA EU style since no one could propose legislation outside the commission I really think the EU would be better off not trying to become the centralised primary legislature of the nation states of Europe, its going to lead to more resentment. Cos if the EU fucks anything up (looking at you delayed vaccine rollout that took months to get a contract with its myriad phama companies) the entire project takes a massive hit
Hello. There might be a hiatus between the nature of the Brexit debate, whiwch is the way the Brexiteers presented it to the population, and their own ideas and objectives. In essence (and that's also illustrated) by your post, it shifted attention on everything but oneselves. When you do that, all of the above in your post seems pointless.
@@nico210 Your post is incoherent What does that even mean “shifting attention from oneself” (I assume you mean brexiteer which isn’t true). This is a debate not about brexiteers but about the EU. The EU’s actions and inactions were central to the leave vote regardless about your feeling on the matter. With the referendum being that close I really think a more responsive EU actually willing to do take certain demands seriously would have made the difference
@@maxkennedy8075 My post was a response to your post and your post was about the Brexit(eers), not about the EU. You think your post was about the EU, my answer is that it's only about the delusions and myths about the EU and Britain propagated during the referedum debate. Basically imaginary Britain vs a imaginary EU, and a way not to look properly in the mirror. Which part is not coherent?
Europe's division was a big reason it didn't stagnate like China did. Failing to evolve would mean your neighbour would defeat you. China was an evolutionary dead end pre-century of humiliation, they had no need to evolve and probably would have remained a pre industrial farming society. From this perspective, the EU means Europe has lost its greatest strength, the conflict which caused its evolution.
Very thought-provoking comment, especially that last sentence. A rare perspective I've never heard before, and it might very well be true. Unity can certainly encourage stagnation and it might explain why the Romans rarely innovated after taking control of the Mediterranean.
@@Royal-sp9pb To me though I think we have to ask ourselves is stagnation really a bad thing. You cannot have infinite growth. You either gain more territory or can't keep up. But, the Earth is limited unless we go to space. But then we have the solar system. But what if we can't get past that? There will always be a roadblock to infinite growth. Is conflict really the solution? Like a phoenix die and rebirth? The peoples thousands of years ago no longer exist. There is no Sumerian, Hittite, or roman peoples left. There are a few Assyrians which is a miracle in of itself. The last old Europeans before Indo-Europeans are still alive in Basque. But, people die out and new people create new things. But, is that really good? Right now, in our globalized world we're seeing fewer individual cultures being relevant. more people try to emulate the west and learn English forgoing their native language. I don't know if thats a good thing. But, I think its something we need to discuss. Do we let conflict happen to let new ideas flourish and new people to emerge? Or do we embrace peace, globalization, stability, and stagnation and try to live with that.
As a Lithuanian I grew up somewhat hating Pildsusky (butchered name) as in history classes it’s told that he did not recognized Lithuanian language and wanted to make Polandised federation alongside giving orders to Zeligovsky (another butcher) to create an unreal army mutiny and conquer Lithuania and Vilnius (read more, it’s somewhat sad to see previous brothers to go at each other’s throats). After changes in education system in Lithuania and learning more, I know see Pildsusky as a flawed man with great, but flawed ideas.
To be frank, as a polish student of history, I can tell you quite confidently that (at least in the academic circles of my university) the glorification and the Cult of Marshal Piłsudski, which was so prevalent over the years, is now being steadily torn down. He's facing much more scrutiny for both his foreign and especially internal policies. I can't with certainty capture the opinion of the general public, but I feel that it is also shifting towards a more critical view of his actions. Most people agree that he was instrumental, or at the very least incredibly important for Poland during its early years of independence, but his actions later on leave a lot to be desired. And, while his idea of Prometheanism was something that definitely had some potential, at least on paper, it would have been very difficult or even impossible to implement during the turbulent political situation at the time. Also he had always put Polish interests first on the diplomatic stage, so it's not that far of a stretch that his Prometheanism Project would have Poland take the center stage in this new "Cooperative Collective". Okay, that's enough of an essay, bye.
Yeah, lots of people who have some good ideas... but also many a flaw. We can but hope I guess to try and find the good ideas thought of over time and try to assemble them in to yet better new ideas. Hopefully we'll have some success at that.
@@qqtrol1774 He was more of the Vilnius citizen, so considered himself such. Also recently learned, that he actually spoke Lithuanian alongside Polish as his first language.
As an American I had the same idea as the Chinese viewer that the European union was an attempt to gain enough collective political power to create a European sphere of influence to compete with America and China spheres of influence. i guess its more a framework to get separate nation states to work together. I hope that the system does spread more and nation states are going to work together better
I do too. This is the Realist worldview. Keep in mind that this is Kraut presenting his Liberal worldview (Liberal in the context of international affairs, not Liberal as in the free market or LGBT rights). I still recognise that it is a good alternative way of seeing things, but the Liberal theory is a bit flimsy atm.
Keep in mind that this is his way of seeing it, his point of view, but that's not necessarily what "the EU is about" according to everyone. I'm European (from Italy) and I view the EU as a way for Europe to gain collective political influence to stand its ground against giant countries like India, China and the US, and I hope for this reason that Europe will follow the path of integration and unity in the future, and so do many other European people too. To just dismiss the EU as "nations cooperating" seems unfair to me because it ignores European institutions such as the European Parliament, directly elected by European people, and the ideas of a lot of people who genuinely feel European and hope that European countries can recognise that they are much more similar than they are different. The UN is "nations cooperating", the EU is an "ever closer union", a political entity that calls its citizens "europeans".
@@talete7712 The EU will not become a collective political influence until Europeans respect each other's geopolitical needs -and thus far that has proven to be impossible.
@@stephenjenkins7971 are you from an EU country? By your name I think you aren't. If you aren't then you have no say in this. Why do you even care so much?
@@talete7712 I was giving an opinion on the state of the EU. Am I wrong? Seeing as you're trying to deflect to where I live, I'd say you know I'm correct.
Basically what the Chinese guy was saying is: China did ethnic cleansing better than any other empire, so they became a successful empire for thousands of years. Meanwhile, facts are ignored such as the various subversive of the imperial rules and cultural domination by various outside forces that make China of thousands of years ago not the same China today. There has never been a proper Chinese Empire that lasted for thousands of years. I have met someone who is a doctoral candidate from China completing her thesis in Australia, and she doesn’t know Vietnam exists, and she kept insisting that Vietnam is a province of China. Like what kind of medieval propaganda they teach over in China? Also on that topic Vietnam is an example of Imperial China’s methods and the failure of said methods. They attempted to assimilate Vietnam by immigration and cultural conversion in ancient time. But the reverse happened and the Chinese immigrants became the major force of resistance against further Chinese subjugation. That is why in modern time you often hear about the Chinese government spying on their young students oversea. China’s superiority complex toward its neighbors is also a historic issue that resulted in even further division within the Sinosphere. In modern time Japan, Korea and Vietnam have this thing going where they examine their culture and emphasise, exaggerate and export the parts that make them unique, especially if those parts distinguish them from China, and one another. Because China’s method has always been “I see Chinese culture there, so it is my land.” It created a reaction from its neighbours to establish themselves as unique culture, even though said countries were heavily influenced by Chinese culture. It’s obviously easier to subvert a country’s government when they share the same language and custom, much harder when your target countries use different alphabets, speak different tongue.
Sadly there is this strange divide in South America between nations with left-wing and right-wing goverments. If South America could just go pass idelogical division...
@@ominosentenzioso5100 This is something I always hated/disappointed me from UNASUR. It was supposed to be a South American light EU but instead, due to the lack of cooperation between members and our leaders' ideas of a leftist, united South America instead of just a more united one, is what lead to its eventual demise as left wing politicians were replaced by right wing ones.
Hi! Huge fan! As a Canadian I feel both our economy and politics are deeply interwoven with that of the United States. I think because I never got to learn much about the EU. I am fascinated by the prospect of more political cooperation from nations especially in Europe. Will you be doing any videos involving Canada? Recently, we seem very divided here politically in Canada and COVID seemed to make it worse. The trucker convoys and the pm evocation of emergency powers caught me off guard and I would very much like to here your opinion on what is transpiring here in Canada.
It won't happen, but I lowkey want Canada to join the EU. And to stop its mining companies being such dicks to the latin American/African nations who should otherwise be its allies. Because that would be a way for Canada to buy into a post-imperial world, and create levarage for itself against the US. The irony of this is that Canada is an empire, which still denies sovereignty to the Indigenous peoples within its borders, and fails to uphold the treaties. However the EU contains similar ironies, both with respect to Romani people who barely exist in the European imagination, and to national minorities within national borders (France, Spain, and the UK while it was still a member are still empires even without overseas colonies).
Southern neighbor here, florida man to be exact, he has a friend who is going over Canadian history. I think in his mexico series he links to the channel making it
@@caiwilliams2905 somewhat tangent to the subject matter, but what would sovereignty of indigenous peoples in Canada look like in practice ? And why do you think that hasn't happened yet? I'm a leaf too btw
It will if certain vast immediate neighbour with lots of military potential stops being vast or having military potential 😉 And if you are into conspiracy theories that _might_ be a reason why US hesitates to provide Ukraine with means to deliver a knockout blow.
@@Sometimes_Happiness As I said it's just and exercise in conspiracy thinking I found funny. But I still believe that European dependency on US for security would diminish a lot when there would be no potential danger from the east.
It is quite an important and outlined aspect of Kemalism actually. Other than the countless times it was mentioned directlt, in passing it was almost always alluded to. For example, the phrase "the people of Anatolia" and others of similar meaning were used almost synonymously Turks. This shows that Kemalism links Turks directly to the land they inhabit, and creates the sense that Turks are already where they belong: and therefore rejects the idea of expansion and empire.
I think Atatürk also had similar ideas to some of those underlining the EU, and could be considered a figure similar to Józef Piłsudski. The self-contained nationalism has already been mentioned. One of his best known sayings can be translated as "Peace at home, peace in the world". He was an early prominant figure in peaceful reconciliation. He built memorials for the dead allied soldiers in Gallipoly, which had signs telling the families of the casualties that their kin are resting in a friendly nation. He also welcomed the British king and other heads of state, with whom Turkey had not long ago had been at war with. These threeset up a non threatening envoirment which would clear the way for cooparation. Although the isolationist aspect does contrast with the ideas of EU. Although this can be understood by how anatolia was hunger for attension an care. I would argue that the fall of the Ottoman Empire was not the death of Turkey's empire. Because the Ottomans did not use empire to develop or support Turks, but only the Sultan his circle. So when Turkey emerged, it had been neglected by the Sultans, who had focused all on empire, and needed time to its self.
unfortunately it is flawed, if Ataturk and Turkey actually stayed true to it's "contained nationalism" then they would not squash any attempts of Kurdish Independence or autonomy
@@regg41It isn’t. The autonomy desire reflects only a minority of Kurds and majority are complacrnt with living together. This is what racist Europeans who founded their nation states on one single race cannot understand. Even though the the term Turk refers to a race as well, Ataturk’s understanding of Turk referred to various ethnicities that implicitly accepted a social contract. The social contract is that the people that did not try to break away but united with the remaining people to defend anatolia in the war of independence is called Turks, and the country is theirs collectively. Ataturk’s definition of nation relied on that idea, various ethnicitied that chose to live under one establishment, similar to an American nation system. You might be an indian or egyptian, but that doesn’t change the fact that you are American in broad terms. Same applies here. Even I am quarter Circassian and half Laz, and still considered Turk nation-wise. It doesn’t change the fact that I am not racially Turk, however those two concepts are not in conflict with each other. Even the Kurd related riots back in the foundations were not ethnic rebellions but religious ones, trying to bring sharia back and abolish the newly established secular system. This way of thinking is an inheritance of a multi-ethnic empire. Same applies to Russia to some degree. I remember reading the interview of a Turkish journalist Banu Avar and president Dagestan (autonomous region of Russia close to Azerbaijan). Avar asks the president regarding how they can manage having multiple identities and whether they choose one. The president gives a perfect example saying that: “ You are Banu of Gimli village (the village she is actually from). Outside the Gimli village, you are an Avarian. Outside Avaria, you are a Dagestani. Outside Dagestan, you are a Russian.” So, he says that, she presents herself as a Russian to the world, a Dagestani to Russians, an Avar to Dagestanis and from Gimli, to other Avars.
Poland promoted Prometheism and then got punished for it by the empires they wanted to rebel against. It's like poetry. It's a shame, obviously but it's also interesting.
You're right it is a tragic moment of history, and Intermarium SHOULD have happened, however Poland's territorial ambitions for Lithuanian, Ukrainian and Czech territories somewhat detract from that sympathy towards their second republic.
How interesting that great peace-loving poles in 1920s somehow ended up themselves becoming oppressors and conquerors after taking Czech land and west Ukraine and Belarus. Oh wait, they always were like this, they just got unlucky and lost to other empires.
@@sirgromith They were trying to recreate the borders of PLC. It didn't help that many people in power in Poland were of mixed ethnicity (Piłsudski was Polish/Lithuanian) and didn't want a Poland that's just for the Poles.
Because it's highly exaggerated and false, France is the country that beneficiate the least from the EU, the only danger in Europe is Germany not France, it's Germany who wish to dominates the EU not France again, and it's also Germany fault if there is a war in Ukraine as they financed Russian military for decades and still does with billions upon billions of € every day for gas
@@ommsterlitz1805 true, I'm surprised by Kraut's (apparent) naiveté around Germany. The way the video is framed makes it sound like there's this big warm community between Germany and it's eastern counterparts, united by a common rejection of imperialism. I'd at least recommend people watch Real Life Lore's video on "Germany's Catastrophic Russia Problem" as a form of rebuttal. Shroeder's involvement in the Nord Stream Pipeline is a textbook case of institutional corruption, and it's consequences almost brought Europe down on it's knees when the Ukraine War started.
@@ommsterlitz1805 "France is the country that beneficiate the least from the EU" - this is not true by any metric, but I really just wanted to invite you to analyze the EU common agricultural policies and than reflect on your understanding of France's position on the EU again.
I usually like your content but there are things bugging me here : - UK not being a nation state but an empire is a weird take. What made France a nation state and not an empire then ? - the position you have on France is kind of demonising. In what way is France nei colonising Africa? I don't mean to say they aren't but there are things to discuss : - the argument about the entry of Urkaine in the EU is irrelevant. First because other countries also are reluctant to let them enter, Germany for example. Second, yes policies on agriculture would be turned on their head with Ukraine entry. Saying that France should accept cheap uranium for the end of its agricultural sector is ignoring the lives of the farmers that would lose their jobs (lives that are already difficult). If you think in term of military presence in Africa, it was required in 2013 by Mali but was extended to several countries in the subsaharan region. It should be noted to say that a military presence in this region contribute to European security. France and Britain being the only two countries with expeditionary forces in Europe, it's no wonder why it's France there considering the special relation it has with its former colonies. May I had France left Mali after their demand but the few troops of Germany there will stay until 2024 despote what is wanted by Mali. About Uranium, some number on uranium origins for various uranium importées around the world would have been nice to make a point of comparison. If Niger Uranium is that cheap and only needs to travel half the distance of Canada to France, why France buy 50% from Canada ? I could mention other countries that slow European integrations : - Ireland and Netherlands act as tax heaven in the EU, sucking tax revenues from other countries - Doesn't spain have a special relationship with South American countries ? In what way does it not slow the EU to advance then ? - didn't Germany slow EU progression by being thus dependent to Russian gas ? Didn't it help them stay ahead in term of industry/economy and helped them leverage their power in the EU ? Is Germany afraid to lose its leadership to France in the EU now that there is no Russian gas anymore and that UK left ? I have never heard that argument about the relation between France and Africa slowing down EU integration, but it makes not a lot of sense to me as I can point a lot of other reasons about other countries that seem more reasonable and grounded
I agree totally on the France issue, I think it’s a red herring when many other EU states are drags on greater integration. But I have to differ on the UK which is still an Empire. Ask an English person and they won’t see one but go to Wales and especially Scotland and Northern Ireland and you’ll probably find a large minority/majority who consider themselves attached to an empire against their democratic will. To have separatism in such close proximity to the seat of power is quite destabilizing and the English will have to find a way to peacefully deal with this before their empire disintegrates entirely. The EU was a good sticking plaster on that separatism but now it’s gone the pull will only get greater. This is simply not an issue in France where separatism is a very minor issue in most of mainland France and one defeated by economic necessity in its colonies and Corsica.
His numbers about Uranium furnishers for France are completely false. Canada accounts for only a small fraction of france's uranium, Niger is at 17 %, and Khazakstan is the n1 furnisher, a bit a ahead of Niger and Uzbekistan.
The Chinese perspective reminded me of a Catholic Medievalist approach to the concept of Empire by which the main political relationship is Emperor-Subject, allowing for local self-government while retaining central sovereignty. An evolution of this concept could be beneficial to the EU, as I have seen some EU supporters who are a bit too happy with national dissolution
No, it would only be detrimental. The main problem with the HRE was that italian states did whatever they wanted and the german states plotted to put their favorite emperor on the throne and get more power, ultimately failing. Back then it was impossible to impose the sovereign power over europe, but now the EU can thanks to technology. The best solution for a peacful and united Europe is to yield more power to the central government in order to correct rogue members such as Hungary.
@@redcrown5070 The HRE existed somewhat well for 1000 years, and although in the end it faced all of those problems, it existed for a thousand years decentralized without many problems
I think the European Union is the direct heir of the HRE, with its good and bad things. In great way, it is the brainchild of german catholics, which where the great beneficiaries of the HRE system.
Mercosur as an institution is not that ambitious, it comprises only Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. It's a customs union that never developed into an economic union and it actually has so many asterisks, small print and exceptions that it's more like a free trade agreement. I don't know if Mercosur can be compared to the EU in the building of a post imperialistic world. That being said, south america has the Unasur, which is a project focused on security and infrastructure, that may develop into a deeper integration, but since it was created by 'pink tide' politicians from the 2000's, when the tide was over latin american politicians abandoned the project (allegedly due to disagreements if Venezuela should be a part of it, but mainly because they thought that the project was too ambitious and each latin american nation state future lies instead with stronger ties to the U.S, China, Africa or any combination of countries rather than their neighbors). Right wing politicians created the Prosur, which is Unasur 2.0, which is fine, it's less ambitious and more slow paced, but still, both Unasur and Prosur are far from the grand vision of the EU. My point being, I don't know if latin america is building this post imperial order alongside Europe and Africa. Very long text to disagree with such a minor point of your video, I know, I'm sorry
It also doesn't help that Uruguay has recently violated the MercoSur agreement by independently making a trade agreement with China, without facing much of any repercussions from the rest of MercoSur for the violation.
In it's origins it was very ambitious with the intent to emancipate latin america from imperialism, especially from the USA. Right now? USA has proven to be very much still in charge, and it looks like turning to China will be the only way to stay afloat as to not end up like Africa. Lithium might be the last chance we have at emancipation but as dictatorships, international debt and soft coups are making a comeback it looks like we will be under imperialism until the collapse of the USA
In the end, we need money. The best is example is how a pro US government like Bolsonaro developed strong economical relationships with China and Russia.
South America has many challenges right now, yeah. But I think the point being made in the video and I think is at least some what reasonable is, is that perhaps the EU could try and help facilitate bringing this idea to other parts of the world as well. For instance if the EU created a carrot with some kind of South American EU equivalent, for instance by a favorable free trade agreement or other favorable cooperative elements. Then it could perhaps convince some of the South American countries to try more seriously to make such a system work. After all, there would be something quantifiable to gain then for the price of entry. It's something to at least consider as possibly a good idea to try I think.
Dude, your work is always so impressively well written and thoughtful. I hope to achieve your level of writing one day. Let me ask you, how much time do you take to research videos like this one? Does your education background helps you with it? Thank you and congrats for the vid, Kraut. :)
I think your analysis of France was correct in the 80s (and generally speaking a large part of the early history of the EU), but is outdated in the modern period. African states can say "no" to France and do so all the time. There is no longer a French Empire, and there is no longer a Françafrique (in term of the ability of France to impose by force its will on African nations after the decolonisation, of course economic links remain but they are no longer maintained through force ; those economic links might be called "Françafrique" but I think it is not a good idea to use the same word to describe modern relation between France and Africa and relation between France and Africa during the 70s, 80s and 90s). Tight economic links are still present, but they are fading away. Recently MSC (an Italian company) bought Bolloré Africa Logistic (a French logistic company operating in Africa). Africa (and west Africa) is not the French playground that it was before. French companies are still present in Africa but it is a result of history rather than an advantage of France over other countries. When companies with superior capital want to push away French companies they can do so with ease. This is not only true with other european countries : when Chineese companies build infrastructure in ex-colonies, they can do it and France is not interfering. When French military forces are deployed in African nations, they do so with the consent of the local government. When the military junta decided to kick France out of Mali, France had the motive and the means to overthrow the Malian government like it did before when ex-colonies refused to cooperate with France, but simply left. Finally I think your example with uranium is not very good, because most of the value created by the nuclear industry comes from fuel processing (turning uranium ore and depleted fuel into new fuel) and power plant operation/construction. Both of those activities are mostly done in France. Uranium mining is not really relevant to the nuclear industry. It is at least several order of magnitude less important to the nuclear industry compared to the importance of oil (or gas) to the chemical industry for example. The competitive edge that France has (or more accurately had) was the ability to quickly and cheaply build nuclear reactors. EDF can deal easily with an uranium two times more expensive, however they cannot deal with the Flammanville's EPR cost. French electricity production was recently at risk not because of a lack of uranium but because EDF struggled to fix a design flaw in several reactors. Generally speaking economic links between France and Africa are not really that important anymore to France and no longer give France a relevant competitive advantage. France is a service based economy, and the large marjority of its trade is done with the EU, China and the US. Trade with Africa is not the engine of the French economy like it was in the past. And I am pretty sure that the lower importance of trade with Africa is the main reason why France is no longer heavily invested in Africa. The most important French military intervention in Africa in the past two decades was Libya, and it was a case of Sarkozy (then president of France) being corrupted and acting for himself rather than a grand French strategy. (Sarkozy is so corrupt that he is the first French president to be sentenced to prison under the 5th Republic, it is that bad) There is still a strong, (imo) legitimate anger towards France. And France is by no mean stopping to interfere with African politics out of good will (I believe they mostly do so because of lower economic interests in Africa). France is also probably going to keep being very important to African politics. But it won't be because France can conscript Africans to fight their wars, or because France can murder African politicians freely when they prevent French businesses to profit. Also, France's influence in Africa is no longer dominant, Russia or China can come and easily challenge France in western Africa. I believe european countries can absolutely come to Africa and developp stronger (and healthier) parternships than France but have so far lacked any motivation to do so in general. Thus I think describing modern France as an empire is innacurate. However it used to be accurate, and kept being accurate far longer than all of the other European countries (except Russia perhaps but I think you were only speaking about EU countries).
Yeah, I'm sure those French colonies in Polynesia love having thermonuclear bombs exploded on their islands and atols. No French pressure there. Completely voluntarily.
@@LarsPallesen Fair enough, but when did it happen ? Before the 2000s. Bad things have absolutely happened but France is no longer doing that. That was the point of my comment. France was an empire. That is a fact. But France is no longer an empire. It is a fact too. France can no longer go to French Polynesia and tests nukes.
We should bild Africa railways and carbon-free power planets nuclear solar wind for free in Africa. To pay back the dead of our colonial past. France could build reactors ther why not.
@Talleyrand Fan Regulation is only part of the problem. The other part is economy of scale. The cost of a nuclear reactor go down when you can build several reactors of the same type, because 1) R&D cost will be spread over more reactors 2) Your workforce will get better at building reactors 3) You will be able to invest into economies of scale. The problem of the Flammanville's EPR is that a single reactor was built. If two or three EPR had been built following Flammanville's reactor the cost of the later reactors would have been much lower and companies would have invested more into their tools and workforce. The new plan is to produce EPR2 by pairs and build a batch of at least 6 of them which should hopefully solve most of these issues. EPR which were produced by pairs like Taishan or Hinkley Point C have issues but are much less problematic compared to Flammanville's EPR.
As a Chinese person, I wish the country never unified and proceeded along the European path. There’s pride for having the oldest continuous civilization state yes, but life for the average person was abject misery for most. The unified state encouraged stasis. There might have been an alternate history where competition amongst (at the time advanced) Sinitic states brings about an early scientific revolution. The existing history supports this. Some of the greatest philosophical and technological innovations took place during the warring states period pre unification
It is a sad truth, that wars breed the fastest innovation, as people make up technologies to kill each other better as well as to protect themselves against one another. Truly a sad thing to observe about humans wherever you look. I personally do not see any point in being proud of some random (I had no influence on where and when I was born) factoid of any culture. I would not be a proud "X", based on "X" size, history, conquers, etc. Actually, I want to humbly acknowledge my place in the world, which I share with so many other humans. Maybe I am influenced by being Slovak. We, Slovaks, never colonized, never dominated other nations, never initiated wars (we were just dragged along by external forces into them). We just wanted to live peacefully on the land we were born in, use our native language for communication also in churches and official documents, making up our own rules. Slovakia has no big "global" history, heck, most people in the world could not even find Slovakia on a map. And we have only a handful big personalities that are somewhat internationally known. But that is OK. It is still better than build an illusion of greatness around some "big superpower" myth, as it can and often does lead the simpler minded people of "big superpower" into arrogance against other "small" countries/nations. Having a "big superpower" history is a double-edged sword and it can harm small nations as well as the big ones, if they fall for their own lies and stories.
Congratulations to croatia for joining schengen and the eurozone, you already have new air routes to neighbouring states being introduced due to the cost savings. Hopefully a ferry route from patras to split will happen in the next decade/and hsr from trieste to zagreb to graz.
French citizen here. Skipping all the talk about unfair advantages of colonial empire, I want to bring to your attention that the french farmers have suffered quite a bit since the EU introduce "fair competition" on the market. I guess you can easily imagine why: since there are no more restrictions between european contries (no toll) and it is deemed unfair to subsidize freely a business, french farmers have a harder time maintaining their financial situation in comparison to more poorer countries where wages are lowers which in turn allow for lower production prices. This situation causes the farmer in my country to have one of the highest suicide rates, great inbalance in gender representation and to be a declining part of the population. You could argue that the problem will solve itself when the farmer population finally die out but that would means several things: 1 - most of the population in France would end up in big cities, confirming that small cities and villages are now deserted 2 - an increasingly inbalanced trade deficit for France (which is already quite worrying in 2022) 3 - importing food would emit quite a bit of carbon + cost a lot of electricity to maintain the food in a good state during the travel and distribution phase Speaking of resentment against someone in the UE, you might find resentment against french, but the fact that Germany has had such a favorable trade balance for years, seemingly at the expense of other UE countries, isn't helping. Adding to it the strict financial policies they endorsed doesn't help either.
Do you consider Slovakia as being the "cheap unfair competition"? Because here, the picture is quite bad too. We used to be fully self reliant in food before the collapse of communism, but the picture is completely different today. The cheapest food products are from Spain and sometimes also from France, when it comes to vegetables. And I compare only things that can and are grown also in Slovakia. A lot of meat is imported from Poland as well, and it is cheaper. It makes no sense to compare imported bananas, as they are not being grown here.
@@erikziak1249 The European Union only provokes an economic war between all European countries. I am sad to learn of the situation in Slovakia. But our politicians have other plans for us and our respective nations.
@@annemarchais868 I do not see is as an economic war. It is rather that certain regions specialize in what their local environment is best at. Slovakia is quite hilly and while it is true that technically it is possible to have agriculture and be self-supplied, the geographical situation simply makes Slovak produced food non competitive, because of added cost, that outweigh the cost of transport over thousand kilometers. This is a sad fact, but at the same time it remains true. The borders between national states in Europe are not natural, but a construction of humans. France is certainly much larger than Slovakia and nobody would even consider thinking about why this or that is being "imported" from that specific part of France and transported over 500km, when it could be made "locally" and support the local economy. Inequality of land, resources, etc. is something that will always exist. I do not blame the Spanish for being more efficient at producing food. They objectively have better conditions. Yes, there remains some local production in Slovakia. And it survives, because there is a certain demand for it. People that were previously employed in agriculture now have other jobs, mostly in industry, a few in the services sector. That is a natural process. I am not sad about our situation. Because people are being better paid in what they do now instead of agriculture and their increased buying power enables the rest of the farmers to stay in business, as more people can afford to buy locally produced food. Yet Slovakia is still not that rich, there remains a quite big part of our population that really has to buy the cheapest, they do not look at the origin of the product, but only on the price. I myself am one of the lucky ones and I always prefer to buy locally produced fresh food, if I can. And by locally I do not mean only Slovak, but also from Czechia, Hungary, Austria as I live at the border of these countries. I even reside and work in different countries. I commute daily over what once was a strongly controlled border with guards that shot anyone who tried to escape. It feels strange, remembering that time, those barbed wires and watch towers along the road, just to be able to move freely. And this freedom brings much more benefits to all of us, even though some might see it as threat to their existence. Just look at how Brexit is going. I thank the UK for showing the rest of the EU, how important it is and while it has its flaws and is not perfect, it is better than the alternative. Recent lockdowns and border closures caused me a lot of trouble at work, and many old and unpleasant memories came back. The EU is truly the best we have so far. Yes, it needs to evolve, to change, if change is due. Let us admit problems with honesty and find good ways to solve them together. Not for the benefit of one nation against other nations, but for our mutual benefit. Some people will always be worse off, but overall, the society on the scale of the continent, will be better.
I wil be honest with you , the EU is a Stillborn project ( in my opinion ). I never considered myself European. To me that means nothing. The era of nation states is not over. What is it to be European ? I know what a Slovak , a German , a Romanian or a Finnish is . But a European , I don't know.
@@annemarchais868 I would be interested to know which country you are from. Regarding the idea of nation state, in my opinion it is one of the worst idea that was brought to life as it forced conqueror nation state to conduct either ethnic cleansing or oppress excessively conquered minorities. Also I don't think the EU is stillborn "yet". It is hazardous to say the least but still brought quite a bit of good things. The EU doesn't have any glorious past or legend as most country do, and in that sense I undertsand you have a hard time calling yourself "european". A sense of unity isn't an easy thing to create or bring to life, keep that in mind. @erikziak1249 I agree with you that it allows different areas to focus on their main area of expertise. Still I'm doubtful since drowning other markets with one's excess production doesn't warrant development of said other market in other sectors. I guess we will see how it unfold but we should be mindful of this... Yet again, not like we have a word in it.
In the case of a conflict between Poland and Czechoslovakia, you have confused some things. Zaolzie was an area inhabited mostly by Poles. I think you confused it with the Polish uprisings in Silesia against the Germans (although there were more Poles in Upper Silesia)
@@lordgemini2376 Unfortunately Belgium and Germany (and sometimes France) use their disproportionate influence on the EU to bully the smaller member states, namely in Eastern and Southern Europe, and I feel are turning the EU into just another empire, especially as we see with them prohibiting people from utilizing their own national resources (one of the reasons for Brexit, British fishers were not allowed to fish in British waters) and with their calls to create an EU army. Perhaps Kraut's bias blinds him to this, but as an outsider (American) this whole situation seems very suspicious to me, and if I were living in Europe I would be very worried at the direction Brussels is steering the EU.
@@bfedezl2018 I disagree. Brussels did better preserving peace in Europe when it was simply a common market and didn't (overtly) interfere into the affair of state. The pretense of being a apolitical system was a pretense it was a useful useful at developing codependents and reconciliation without becoming a direct threat to the traditional nation state. It's making the mistakes the Catholic church did in the 11th century.
I definetly agree that reconciliation should come before cooperation. It's just unfortunate that "reconciliation" in Russian translates to "subjugation".
@@pabloagusti5104 I hate modern Russia as much as next person, but dehumanizing a nationality is never OK and only serves to strengthen the kremlins “Russophobia” rhetoric.
@@pabloagusti5104 Yo, we are against the political establishment within russia, not the russian people. Its the same with the chinese or any other state ran by evil
The thing is Germany and Russia *did* reconcile before building economic ties. Germany apologised. Western Europe relation is fundamentally different to that of Eastern Europe for obvious historical reasons. To those in the "west" west Germany to put it bluntly what was coming to them and any cold war distrust of Soviet Russia applied just as much to Soviet. To the point conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher requested the Red Army would intervene stop fall of Berlin Wall. Seriously.
5:30 YES! The whole notion of an "interwar period" only makes sense from the perspective of Western Europe and US. In the East, World War I just kept on going, morphing into the Polist Soviet War, Russian Civil War, Greco Turkish War, etc
I love how every video goes by this logic Nationalism bad Hungary bad German nationalism bad France bad Uk bad EU good also Russia bad liberalism and free markets good
@@balintlakatos7533 I am actually a progressive but i am also a pragmatist . Kraut is the epitome of German centrism. His loves the eu but refuses to criticize the current system . Germany has no backbone and its legit vassal state . Also his attacks on nationalism are dumb many nationalists fought for the freedom of their nations without being racist . Bismarck for example opposed any wars after the unification of Germany and worked very hard to avoid wars he also calls Bismarck a dictator despite the fact that Imperial Germany Had elections
Love how many Poland ball is in video, very like E: also i love how you say Piłsudski, it's nice to hear it said that way and you are very close to saying it perfectly
What made you go from remainer to pro brexit? I was and still am a remainer (for economic reasons mainly) but the past being the past, being leave or remain is irrelevant. I'm unsure if I would be a "rejoiner" though. I would like to hear your opinions on the EU and why it's not it.
@@lordgemini2376 I voted remain as a teenager in college. I believed in multiculturalism, progress and pan national identity. I also love history. David Cameron lead the Remain Campaign on the idea that we could change the EU from within and block it's most radical tendencies, at the time that was the European Army. On the other hand I held sympathies with the Brexit Campaign and some of it's aims. I am a patriot, mainly of our history. I was never convinced of the net economic gain of leaving the EU, I knew it would harm the economy on a Net level. I did want closer ties with the Commonwealth and America, and honestly so did the EU like with Canada and Australia. The main thing that made me flip was democracy. I was determined to accept and support whichever vote won. Brexit won so now I look to the benefits of Brexit.
@@Litany_of_Fury A yes because democracy is actually hivemindism. You don't have to change you opinions because a majority disagrees with you. You just have to accept that most other ppl disagree with you. Most of the time that doesn't even matter if it is something which can be decided between individuals. But in the case of brexit that is a bit hard.
Happy New Year to the citizens of the USA, the European Union, ASEAN, China, Mercosur, the Arab League, the African Union and other countries that have not joined these wonderful unions🇺🇳
I'm an American living in Europe currently, so I fully acknowledge my bias against stronger federalized power... That said, the EU Commission makes my *skin crawl.* They're the only body within the EU that can propose legislation, they can only be removed by a bloody 2/3 majority from parliament or direct action from the president, and the commissioners aren't voted on by the citizenry. Yes, they're selected and voted on by the parliament and parliamentary members *are* voted on by EU citizens, but that's one damn step too far removed in my book. How this state of affairs is tolerated by Europeans with a shrug is simply beyond me.
It is pretty much main thing which many people have against the EU and some people want to rather start their own version of EU,but majority still rather hopes that there is still chance to change how does EU work.
@@tefky7964 How can a change be made when the only people that can start the change would be removed? People at that level of power don't surrender it willingly.
@@tefky7964 Other than dissolving and trying again, I would recommend a letter writing campaign. Smother Ursula von der Leyen and your parliament members with paper letters demanding a vote of no confidence of the current commission, and promise that the letters will not stop until commissioners being legislation to dissolve the commission. Emails are ignorable, but if a politician has to hire staff just to deal with physical mail, that sometimes works.
Although it was widely held that 'the Turk' was militarily superior to the West, the major Habsburg weakness was financial. As a rule, the Estates of the various lands were reluctant to vote adequate tributes to raise a powerful army.
The Habsburgs had many political, institutional, social and other issues. It was a failed state already for a long time and was mainly propped up by Germany in the final decades of it's existence.
7:00 I think you mixed up the Silesian Uprising with the Polish-Czechoslovak war here. Polish-Czechoslovak had more ethnic(majority Polish areas)/area control(important railroad connection for CzS) reasons, and it was instigated by Czechoslovakia not Poland. Silesian Uprising is as you mentioned - mixed population (Silesians) and coal, lots of it.
Having finished my European Political Issues class this semester that discusses the E.U at length it's good to see this video tackle this topic. I'd recommend Frank Mols' work on the subject.
Awesome video Kraut. I'm a British guy that voted for Brexit. Watching this video is quite bittersweet, because it certainly sets up a strong theory for the benefits of EU membership. I also feel like the soul of my country relates to France - the dynamic of France and Ukraine, and the undermining of the union through holdings in Africa, it seems to mirror this bygone thinking that Britain has largely lost, but France still holds onto (ie for uranium). Brits don't want to make all of these post-empire compromises for issues over the channel. It's a similar feeling to the Scandinavians who have an 'EU-lite' trade deal with the EU, such as Iceland. However, I still stick to my guns on Brexit. I feel that the EU is a project for the continent, because like Germany's gamble on Russia and itself being tied by trade, France and Germany are the two relevant powers that need to intertwine. Right now our country is sticking to a clever route of being out of the EU, but being the first to defend its integrity by assisting Ukraine where possible. My country's future as a nation-state (well pointed out), in my opinion, lies in an Anglosphere CANZUK alliance, where one day it will be an ancient and symbolic partner, where the other nations (especially Australia) are the hardest hitters. Our relationship with Scotland (from the English perspective) is key too, because if the Arctic continues to grow as a resource hub and trade route, British influence will grow a surprising amount, and Scotland has the ability to piss off and tie up with the EU, which I believe is unnecessarily divisive, but its up to the Scots.
CANZUK can be a great initiative, but imo the US has a lot of strategic goals that collide with an independent CANZUK, and will force the nations to submit to it's grand strategy of American led World Order.
Always enjoy hearing continental Europeans tell us Brits what we think. Apparently you know what we think better than we do. If there was anyone who supported Brexit because they wanted to return to the days of empire, then it was tiny. Indeed, the only people who talked about the empire during the Brexit campaign and the years afterwards were remainers who insisted that's what brexiteers wanted, and then attacked them for it. I believe that's what people call a "strawman". It's telling that Europeans used the "you're not a powerful empire anymore" line as a way to try to persuade Brits not to leave the EU, and yet we still did. It makes it clear that Brits don't care about not being a great, imperial power any more, but that Europeans do. Also, the empire wasn't profitable for Britain, especially after Indian independence. It was a financial burden, which is ultimately why it ended; we couldn't afford to maintain it anymore. If it had been profitable, we would have worked much harder to keep hold of it, I assure you.
In his "co-operation as an international order" chapter he talks about how the European project is about post-imperial peaceful co-operation. I don't see why we can't create a similar post-imperial structure of co-operation with CANZUK. Sure, it's not as economically large and impressive as the EU, but does it really have to be?
Private companies continue to make a killing off the former colonies. I think of it as the government fronting the bill so that private companies bring the money home. The UK, the Netherlands, and especially France just realized you don’t need the colony anymore.
As an American who was always too busy to figure out what Brexit was about, may you please tell me what it is that Brexiteers were aiming for in leaving the EU? I may have vague ideas, but nothing concrete
@@Zeromus725 I'm happy to give a brief run-down for science. Disclaimer - this is what was going through my mind in 2016, but I'm not aiming to start a flame war here, so I'm not going to defend them if people want to tear them apart in the replies: The biggest part was immigration. A lot of people say that Brexiteers just hate foreigners, but looking at the bigger picture, the Brexit vote was in 2016, in the middle of the European Refugee Crisis from Syria. The EU's response basically amounted to "Southern Europe is swamped? Germany, France, UK, Sweden, you guys pick up the slack. Wait, terrorist groups are openly gloating that they're sneaking terrorists into Europe among the refugees? How about we just ignore them?" which lead to a spike in terrorism across the continent for years to come. Even with buying Russian petrol and gas, 6 years later, the EU always seem to make themselves look complacent and spineless and slow to act on anything until it's too late. Another part was fishing. The population of cod in the English Channel has been suffering from overfishing for decades, and a large portion of the fishermen were from Spain, and not even the UK. Under EU law, this matter is out of the hands of the UK government, and the EU never enforced the kind of environmental protections for British waters that they have for the Mediterranean Sea. It's a good example of what brexiteers mean when talking about "taking back control" whether they're right or wrong. I also need to bring up the misinformation campaign. Boris Johnson infamously advertised on the side of a bus that the UK gave £350 billion a year to the EU, and should instead give it to the NHS. Also, British people were getting targeted with Facebook adverts telling them to vote Brexit which could be traced back to Russia or Cambridge Analytica. It's not a valid reason to vote Brexit, but sadly I'd be lying if I said misinformation wasn't involved. A big part was also CANZUK and the Commonwealth. The UK founded an enormous association of countries that made up a third of the world population, just to ignore them and only form trade agreements with them as part of the EU instead. A commonly brought up replacement for the EU is often the CPTPP which is a faster-growing economy than the EU. Back in 2014, David Cameron promised "one last go" to make big changes to the EU to give the UK powers to limit the free movement agreement, to help stop terrorists and help keep immigration at manageable levels. It went about as well as you'd expect. Similarly, France are currently attempting to create something (I've heard people describe it as the EU 2.0) to make it easier for European nations to co-operate and trade without necessarily having to be in the EU and follow its laws. It's a cool idea, but it's ultimately unlikely to go anywhere. Also, the UK is attempting a "Swiss-style" relationship with the EU, which from minute 1, everyone was sceptical of because the EU hates its current relationship with Switzerland and desperately wants to leverage Switzerland to join. I'm still sceptical of the common argument that "The EU is a great idea, it just needs reform" because the EU seems inflexible and hell-bent on fighting any reform, including those that it desperately needs. Edit: something else I forgot to bring up is that the EU wants to merge into a super-state. I've seen people argue that it's not, but not convincingly. One of the EU's core principles is "ever-deepening" co-operation and integration. Enforcing that will inevitably lead to a United States of Europe in the long term. This isn't really an unpopular option for countries like Sweden, Poland, or Ireland, but obviously it's a harder pill to swallow for the UK, which is a former superpower and has a history and still has current allies, interests, and British Overseas Territories to protect on the other side of the world. Would a centralised EU military really bother deploying to, say, the South Atlantic Ocean if the Falklands needed protecting? There is a case to be made for a federal United States of Europe, but it is not popular in the UK, and it's the clear direction the EU are currently taking. Also blue passports FTW lol Apologies for the essay, but this is an oversimplification if anything. We had about a year of this back-and-forth in the UK, and then another 6 and a half years afterwards.
@@belnonaodh1520 I see, there's a lot of stuff in here I'd never heard before, like with the fishing thing. It seems reasonable to me that people would want to protect the aquatic ecosystems and relevant commerce. The other points are interesting too even if more evidently debatable. Immigration I do remember being a huge topic. For the potential replacement economic alliances, did that end up fading away to time? Hindered by the pandemic? Work in progress? And about the Boris bus thing, is it infamous because it was false, misleading, or some other reason? I also appreciate that you're not afraid to talk about the misinformation. Thanks for the post!
Maybe we aren't *intentionally* doing so. We Europeans are first trying to form a long lasting peace with eacthother first, and creating deals which benefit all the European countries. As we do that, we are becoming closer as a continent. We are forgiving eachother for past transgressions, we start to live and work in different EU countries, have relationships with people within the EU, and we start learning languages to speak with one another. All these programs are intended to just first benefit the countries in the deals, but as we benefit from those deals, we start to gain a love for our European family. We may not be trying intentionally to form a civilization state, most certainly not in the same way China did, but through these deals, we may become closer as a ''civilization''.
![ARGENTINA vs. BOLIVIA [6-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/C3wPtKNbAOA/mqdefault.jpg)
Play Enlisted for FREE on PC, Xbox Series X|S and PS®5: playen.link/krauten2022
Follow the link to download the game and get your exclusive bonus now. See you in battle!
Progression can get a tad bit tedious, but overall a good game.
Europe is an impossible mix of cultures which are generally incompatible in terms of planning and implementation styles.
Do you fully disagree with Realism as an International Relations Theory or simply Offensive Realism?
2:33 spealing of Chinese viewer`s biases, nice/interesting map of "Europe"
If this video was published 8 minutes ago, how is your comment 9 days old?
As a Chinese, I drew the opposite conclusion to your Chinese friend. Indeed, attempts to unify Europe failed but that of China succeeded explained the stark contrast between these societies. However, I think it is the the constant pressure of war that gave Europe its strength. From the middle ages through to WW2, the pressure of war necessitated technological development in order for European powers to stay relevant.
In contrast, a united China gave rise to a group of decadent and corrupt aristocracy, undergoing cycles of internal conflicts over and over again, until they exhausted themselves only for an external power to take advantage of the situation and conquer them (e.g. Mongol and Manchurian), not unlike the late Roman history.
I personally think the best time for a singluar "civilisation state" to develop would have been the Napoleonic era. After industrialisation global spaning imperial empires simply couldn't coexist on the continent.
I view their is philosophical differences especially militarily between Europe, and China even during the Roman rule. Which is that generals in Europe only get respect by waging war and securing the loyalty of their soldiers with war loot aka winning wars constantly. Meanwhile the most respected generals in China are the strategic masterminds able to use the vast resources of the empire to perform impossible feats. Essentially Europeans know war by doing it, where as China strategizes to contain/ Control war.
I agree with your views to the letter, the constant pressure in europe motivated constant progress and advancement which led to europe advancing its technology and helped it catch up eventually, while china instead got all cozy and aristocratic resulting in it stagnating dispite initially being at the forefront in technological advancement.
@@neroatlas9121 It's honestly not that simple imo. There are any number of reasons why dynasties fall and they're not all interrelated. For instance, the Song dynasty, which fell to the Mongols, was economically and culturally powerful but militarily weaker than most Chinese dynasties that came before it. This was because the founder of the dynasty explicitly suppressed the military because he himself was a general who overthrew his emperor and was afraid of the same thing happening to him.
Then in referring to the Ming, they were the ones who overthrew Mongol rule but were inspired by the Mongols to be more despotic and autocratic than traditional Chinese dynasties would've been. There's also the fact that significant technological knowledge was lost during the collapse of the Han dynasty which set China back who knows how long. And then there's the Qing who actually were complacent, but they also set China back in a lot of other ways, mostly in the way they pitted ethnicities within China against each other to maintain Manchu rule over the majority Han population.
Some civilizational characteristic of "complacency" or whatever is simply way too simplistic to explain historical events and trends and honestly it reeks of orientalism imo.
I also subscribe to the theory that the constant pressure of war in Europe was what drove a lot of its technological development. For much of history in that part of the world, you'd quickly be conquered by some neighbouring kingdom if you didn't keep up.
Parts of Asia didn't have this and China often dominated the entire region to the point everyone was basically a subsidiary of China, so war was a bit less constant. Japan even has periods of history where basically nothing happens for a couple centuries because of isolationism and the fact that it isn't exactly easy to invade since it's an island and much further from the main continent than Britain. Nothing happening and being left alone for even a single century is just something you'd never see in much of European history.
Japan only caught up technologically because they didn't want to fall behind the growing European powers as well as the fact some European powers actually helped them catch up.
As a Chinese-American from Texas, I can confirm that referring to other nations as more backwards than us is just about the most Chinese thing we can do outside speaking Chinese.
As another Chinese American, I agree. Not sure if its akin to modern nationalism, but there is a huge amount of pride engrained in Chinese culture atleadt when talking about others.
One of the things that came out of taling with some of my other ABC friends is "you dont call everyone around you a barbarian unless you have very tall towers and very thick walls".
A favorite ancedote is that when the British first tried to negotiate with the Qing, the Qing ambassador spoke to him in Latin.
You both better have a good VPN. Godspeed.
@@deathmorphosis In Texas? What for?
@@deathmorphosis why would I need a VPN?
@@richyhu2042 It would appear as though he only perceived the "Chinese" part of your nationality.
This reminds me of an essay by George Orwell called "Towards European Unity." Written after WW2 he says that now that the nuclear bomb was invented, there are only three paths forward:
1) Total nuclear war, end of civilisation, return to the stone age.
2) Emergence of three or four nuclear imperialistic superpowers that will divide the whole world between them and devolve into all-encompassing bureaucratic dictatorships (basically the premise of 1984)
3) Foundation of the European Union.
It's an incredibly prescient piece of text. The biggest threats for this plan, he writes in 1947, will be:
- The UK, who will always prefer it's cross-Atlantic ties and boycott any European plans that don't involve the USA.
- Russia who will never let go of its imperialistic tendencies...
Wow,he wrote that in 1947.
@@tefky7964 Yeah, incredibly accurate.
Well except for the third threat: he predicted that Vatican will oppose EU as well. But as far as I see, Vatican doesn't give a crap.
To be fair, Orwell wrote it before the 2nd Vatican council, which modernized the church and made it less political.
Only, that the European Union that was founded at the end, is 1984.
@@Posiman Because what we got as European Union, is not the European Union born out of the wish to have stabile peace. It uses its name, but it is the second option: 1984!
Amazingly accurate.
As an American, I found it really funny that the Chinese guy thought of the United States as a European mistake. I wouldn't say that he is wrong in that the US was definitely a failed British colonial policy, but I love the imagery of the rest of the world shaking their heads at the US and looking askance at the UK and the UK is like "I did my best..."
One does not expect an unbiased opinion from a member of the nation that calls itself "the nation of the center" (zhong guo).
As someone from the UK, we do kinda look at you like that. Though, I doubt it's the same as what the Chinese guy was saying.
@@juliuskresnik198 yeah same…
@@LMB222 It sounds even more ridiculous because that Chinese person ignores both the failures of Qing and Maoist China.
Well what I tell people the world is better off with us here than without.
I'm Polish and I have to admit, I didn't expect Piłsudski in this video
I knew he imagined Poland as a Federation in which Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine etc. are part of, with very high level of autonomy. But I didn't really know there was more to it.
the last time i heard the concept of intermarium (3 seas) mentioned was in a caspian report geopolitics video
no idea it was formulated by pilsudski though
Rzeczpospolita Polska wiesz!
Unexpected Atatürk got me the same.
I read this comment the moment he mentioned him
your Chinese friend conveniently forgot the very pervasive Sinicization that happened in his lands. Not everyone was born Han.
The Chinese will never miss a opportunity to call everybody except them backwards
Indeed
I don't think he forgot it, the same thing happened in the Roman empire.
@@raxit1337 No. Not in that extent and not in such pervasive manner. Spaniards or French don't say they are roman. Heck, even the arabs didn't go that far.
@@Kaiyanwang82 The roman empire collapsed ages ago, of course Spaniards or French don't say they are roman. those areas were latinised by the romans though, they had completely distinct cultures before.
It's is very good video and very informative, but I want to point out 2 small mistakes.
1. When you mention boder co conflict between Poland and Czechosloviakia. The region - Cieszyn Silesia was majority Polish, exept the most western parts, which is shown in every population census at that time, even the Czech ones. Also this co conflict was not about taking the whole area, but about where to put the border.
2. Józef Piłsudski was not leader of First Polish Republic, but the second one. It's because in polish oficial name of our country lack the term republic (pl. republika) but we use term Rzeczpospolita - direct translation of Latin respublica into polish. Because oficial name of Polish-Lithanian Commonwealth was Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów, we refer to interwar Polish state as Second Rzeczpospolita.
Yeah, for 1. I can add that the contested area contained an important railroad junction connecting Prague and Moravia to Slovakia (one of the two existing at the time afaik), so it was an important strategic land for Czechoslovakia to obtain aside of the resource question.
The capture of this junction was also given as a reason of the Polish annexation of the region in 1938 as it would, besides settling old disputes, improve Polish security in case of an invasion from the West.
@@patapax7033 That went well
Does that translate as The Republic of Two Nations?
@@xenamorphwinner7931 No, the direct translation of Rzeczpospolita is Republic, or Commonwealth. That's why the First Polish Republic is often referred to, as Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, or the Commonwealth of the Two Nations. The second one is commonly used in Poland (Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów)
@@jakubjaworski1593 Thanks
The idea of the French Leader and German Leader standing together at their probable bloodiest spot for both and holding hands is quite powerful
Everybody asks " What even is europe? "
Nobody asks " *How* even is europe? "
>How is Europe
In its 4th recession in a decade, thank you for asking
Eating bugs and going monke
" How long is europe?"
Nobody asks that question as if they did, it would lead to asking further questions that would dismantle their presuppositions and force them re-evaluate their beliefs. This is something people don't tend to do willingly.
I’ll do you one better, *why* even is Europe?
I love the phrase "ukrainian uranium"
Try saying it three times as fast.
@@greyghost2492 Ugly-crane urinal
Ukrainium
Uraine
@@greyghost2492
The second syllable for me is so hard, i think a frickative i do not know the term, its not too hard
I find the Chinese perspective on Europe fascinating, mostly on the view of Rome. That it was a stabilizing force that tragically failed rather than an imperial Empire of its time that had great achievements but also caused much suffering. "They made a desert, and called it peace." comes to mind.
I think it shows reading history from another culture it's not necessarily correct to read it like your own history, history rhymes but it's not the same.
As a Chinese, the way I interpret such infatuations we have for Rome stem from this: a powerful centralized state with a well maintained governing apparatus, strong army, influential high culture and language, evokes parallels to our first golden age, the Qin-Han dynasties. This lionized imagery of a strong dynasty ruled over by wise emperors is praised and alluded to not only in political pieces of later dynasties, but also ingrained into our historical and literary traditions, the Chinese utopia, in a sense.
@@TheLivetuner lol I thought the ccp do alway with the mandate of heaven
@@TheLivetuner There was that feeling of nostalgia for the Roman Empire as well but as time has gone on sympathy for it has lowered, as historians have been more critical of them. Particularly how their empire conquering mirrors European imperialism. Rome as a society is looked back on more critically as the years go on.
@@khanhnguyen-tt3ff “The Mandate of Heaven” is a misleading English translation, as it was largely a secular idea represented using mystic language. It all comes down to honouring morality and political justification, there is really nothing religious about it in practice, thus the CCP isn't doing away with it entirely, just further eliminating whatever remains of the mysticism and the characteristic tied with dynastic structure.
@@TheLivetuner > “well maintained governing apparatus”
Ehh…
As an American in Switzerland (it happens) I would like to share a story. When I first came for my job interview the HR lady asked me why I wanted to move out there. My response was that I have wanted to live in Europe for a very long time. Her follow-up: "Then why do you want to come to Switzerland?"
At the time I laughed it off, but after 4 years of living there and watching this video, I see her point.
EDIT: Looking back, probably the best response would have been, "Well, it's a lot closer!" 😂
I don't understand the HR lady. Switzerland is in Europe...
@@arturodiazcoca7408 Yes, but it's painfully neutral. Switzerland isn't in the Union, so it doesn't quite have the same benefits people would get from living in a country that is part of the EU. Pretty sure they also developed their culture completely differently from their neighbors, but that could be wrong
@@RiverRina Painfully? Amazingly neutral
@@RiverRina what do you mean painfully lmao. They are the only sane ones who practice neutrality instead of warmongering because muh demucracy and europoor values are under threat lol.
@@RiverRina I would not call it completely different by any means, though by a quirk of history they managed to build a state and fierce national identity without basing it on language or really anything more than their security interests having pulled them together into a confederation. This has made Switzerland an inspiration for European Federalists in the past.
You are the only youtuber I have ever seen that has given Turks credit for anything other than military accomplishments. Thank you.
Ataturk was one of the great men of the 20th century. A pity so few pay more attention to his achievements.
@@feastguy101 It's probably because Turkey before Ataturk and now after Ataturk is just another middle eastern (culturally) authoritarian theocracy, so the genius that was Ataturk often gets forgotten sandwiched between those periods.
@@viysnjor4811 Middle Eastern Theocracy... Erdoğan uses religion for politics. But Turkey is still a secular country. And trust me when I say this, the removal of secularism from the constitution would create a popular uprising.
Same with the Kemalist ideology, Atatürk is pretty much still respected in Turkey (Even in the majority of Erdoğan supporters for some reason).
What Turkey is experiencing is the possible future for Poland and Hungary. And they are not middle eastern last time I checked. Erdoğan's advantage is that he started earlier to corrupt the supreme court and military and has a much tighter grip to those than PiS or Orban currently has.
You can say that we don't have an European culture. Sure. But we are not Arabs as well. The inclusion of Turkey to the Middle Eastern countries does not have any valid reason.
Ah man the ataturk/turkey videos on this channel are so good. Literally "what if all the american founding fathers were fused into ONE PERSON" and BAM you have Ataturk
@@Devillunar I understand the difference between Turks and Arabs, but Middle Eastern does not default to "Arab" either, anymore than saying a country has a "European" culture means they are Germanic. The issue is that modern Turkey has nothing in common with European nations, and instead far more in common with Middle Eastern ones (or Belorus/Russia) since Erdogan is an increasingly religious presidente-for-life type of figure.
This was very good! It's actually the best liberal response to realism from the European point of view - the fact that you can create what in our language is a Great Power which's rational self interest is internal cooperation. Now, it remains to be seen if countries will actually move in this direction (and there are reasons to doubt it, mainly that individual members would need to surrender various form of self interest), but if successful, a cooperative model could pretty much, as you put it, be the "death of Empire."
It's a very ambitious project but if it succeeds it would be a very good thing.
Honestly i would never agree to such a thing as Frenchman, it would pretty much be the death of France as i want it to exist
It would only be the death of sovereign empire. Capital is very much an empire in its own right, but of a much different and ultimately more powerful kind.
In many ways the EU represents the best attempt, so far, at bringing about the "Death of Empire" and it is interesting to note that the two countries most struggling with this in the past two decades, Hungary and the UK, are either (Hungary) shouting a lot but never really putting their money where their mouth is, or (UK) putting their money where their mouth was and finding out within the last few years what a stupidity that was while now facing a situation they'd prefer to undo but that can't be undone (internally or externally) as easily as it was to leave the EU. The UK experiencing that a modern-day Ireland backed by its EU siblings is in many ways more influential, and more ... 'sovereign', than a post-imperial UK on its own was very educational.
@@frankwitte1022 Leaving the sinking ship that is the EU was certainly the right choice. The problem is, the political and financial elite who control the UK do not agree, and made sure to sabotage the exit process. This can be seen from the flailing ineffectiveness of every administration, post-Cameron, in actually implementing Brexit. Leaving was not a mistake, entrusting the process to those who have all the incentive to stay was.
@@zerologic7912 I think it's best to not confuse and confound matters by mixing them, it only makes finding solutions harder in the end.
What I mean in this is, is that the argument that the EU seems like one of current best efforts against one of the elements of empire. That other elements exist should not stand against this, if one can't take step forwards then how would one ever reach the goal after all?
Beyond that it's probably important to always keep in mind what capital really is and is really about. It's not about empire in the end after all, instead it is about the gathering of resources so one can do larger projects with it, be these factories, canals, railways, social services, etc. All of these require more 'capital' in the most abstract real meaning of the word then any single person can gather.
But in the end this just means you need to be able to gather resources for larger projects as well, it says nothing about how such should be gathered, used or controlled. There's no rule a single individual must control it after all, many alternate forms exist like quite large non-profit organizations that say run a theme park quite successfully.
I suspect it is examples like these that might help in your apparent goals to escape what happens when enormous amounts of capital are controlled by but a single person. Though I'll admit I'm guessing at your goals and all there, so I can but hope it is of some help for you.
Europe is a unique chaotic union of countries that works surprisingly well
Well, it's easy to do that when all countries agree to screw over the people of their respective nations
It does? Haven’t noticed.
« works » lmao
Cut the loose nut Orban and it'll work as new again.
@@raphaelcavatoni1011 It does amazing work lol
This was ridiculously EXCELLENT! I would literally die if you made a long video about "WHY" European Imperialism changed the rest of the world
Pero si es el mismísimo Dio
MI DIOS DIO
Me encantó tu serie del mod de The New Order, hay posibilidad de volver? 🥺
As an American, I have always had a very vague understanding of the European Union, but always wondered at (and got confused when trying to learn) anything more about it. As per usual, Kraut has managed to make a detailed and yet comprehensive video that has established a basic premise of the topic without shoehorning in too much personal opinion, and in turn, has made it significantly easier to understand. More excellent work from an excellent creator.
Completely agree with you. I also really liked that @Kraut explained the historical development of the EU, I was very important (and necessary) for a silly American like myself.
@@monkeyseatcatfood He negates to mention the fact that unfettered immigration has led to brexit also, due to massive increases in terrorism, grape and murder on our streets not to mention the pushing of Islamic culture across our nation.
its a goverment for goverments
Basically a gang.
theres big China over here, and big USA over there. and some big powerful corporations creeping around. and russia is drunk again.
im small, youre small, we're all small, so lets form up into one big force. so nobody can fck with us.
and thats the eu.
then suddenly .... ' yes but i deserve two slices of cake 🍰 because im Britain and im better than everyone and if you don't give me my two slices ill leave, theres probably more, and better cake outside anyway'
- CLUNK. Adios.
and that was brexit.
It's okay, our education system sucks. We should've taught this in HS
As a Georgian, I want to thank you for your wonderful channel and encourage you to continue portraying Georgia as a European nation (and a part of European history), which is critical for Georgians' self-perception.
Why?
From Portugal, I can tell you that I’ve always seen Georgians to be Europeans as a matter of course. Our maps show the Caucasus countries as being in Europe, and what I’ve seen of Georgia points to it being an European nation in all aspects.
Can’t say the same of Russia. My opinion of Russia was never very positive, but it completely nosedived after their invasion of Georgia. Further history as only confirmed that negative view.
My best wishes for Georgia, and my hope that you will eventually be able to liberate the unredeemed portions of your territory that were cut of you at gunpoint by the machinations of an evil imperial power.
It seems pretty obvious to me that Georgia should be considered European. But I guess when one is out near the edges of what is politically considered the European continent one might at times feel a bit less certain if everyone further towards the center actually agrees.
Best of luck to Georgia though, it's certainly not in the easiest of positions right now, hopefully it can handle it all with out to much trouble.
@@feastguy101 I agree that Georgians are Europeans and while I'm not a fan of Russian aggression, that does not make their people non-European. Also let's not pretend that Georgia was some pure innocent victim, Abkhazians have a right to self-determination, their people have gone through enough suffering by Russian and Turkish empires, they don't need Georgian colonisation. Though I will say I am mixed on South Ossetia, Not trying to start a fight, just saying that too many rush to hate Russia blindly and anyone associated with them, but it's far more common that Russia uses people in difficult situation. Look at Armenians, Russia has them trapped, with Turkey and Azerbaijan constantly lobbying the EU and US if Armenia leaves the Russian sphere they will be isolated and possibly annihilated by an increasingly aggressive Aliyev regime. So yes Russia is an imperial power that cut that land away from Georgia, but blindly giving it back to Georgia in a heartbeat would not make the conflict that Abkhazians and Ossetians have with the central Georgian government go away, and Tbilisi to this day has shown no interest in any dialogue or appeasement. Important to remember that Stalin, who was a Georgian, ended the Abkhazian Soviet Socialist Republic and forced it to be a part of Georgia as an "autonomous" republic.
@@feastguy101 "Caucasus countries" were either part of Iran, Turkey or Russia for more than a thousand years.
To say they are a part of Europe is to tacitly claim Iran and Turkey are European countries, which is a laughable claim.
Man, this video is amazing. As a Ukrainian, I would definitely say, that the post-colonial future where Ukraine (and our bro Poland in no lesser sense) stop being the PVP zone for European/worldwide conflicts would be a nice change
Polish pvp is just hilarious
I think that for a long time now, generally all slavic people have been the pvp zone for european/world wide conflitcs, the “europeans” have never likad us, we were always lower people, exploitable and living on land that was good for food, had its good resources and most importantly we have always been a border to Asia. Guarding Europe from Ottomans, Mongols and other invaders, and also preventing other europeans going to Asia. Also a unified tight connection between all slavic tribes was a big threat to them, as we are great in numbers and surface area, even before Russia expanded so far east. Sadly i don’t think we will ever get our peace
Thats the dream brother
With Poland though I'm more worried about it taking over Russia's role as the imperial power of the region and starts to compete with Russia to dominate Ukraine. Democracy in Poland is starting to break down and the EU is not doing very well to correct it.
I think Poland represents the modern EU better than any other member so integrating them is critical.
You - Ukrainians - have made it absolutely clear where you want to belong. No other nations paid with many lives for the wish to join the EU.
It's shame on us that we didn't notice this, and act fast enough.
First day of my Western History class in college, the teacher asked us "What is Europe", and proceeded to spend the next semester trying to give a good answer to that question
And this is why the EU is doomed to failure. There is no unifying "European Identity". The only undeniably true definition of Europe is a geographic one.
And was the answer good?
A good answer to that question: "It's a continent". I hope this saves you another semester.
@@FSPlata23 In geography classes that affirmation would spark more discussion.
As a Czech allow me to point out a few things:
1. The Slovak language would only fully form in the 19th century while there was an ongoing debate whether it was a dialect of Czech or its own separate language. But it had been deemed that the Slovaks are in fact a distinct nation with a distinct language decades before the Austro-Hungarian empire's collapse.
2. There were Slovaks such as Ján Kollár who saw unity with Czechs as a bridge towards a pan-Slavic solidarity which in turn was a bridge towards global humanism.
3. Slovaks were deemed to be unable to defend their own independence from Hungary, making Czechoslovakia itself a practical necessity more than anything else.
4. The idea of "Czechoslovakism" was then put forward for a specific purpose which was to outnumber the more than 3 million Germans living on the Czech territory. That's why it never appeared again after WWII, since almost all of the Germans got deported as part of the post-war settlement.
You know... I wonder about this.
Slovak language was pretty much unified due to Štúr in the 19th century when he Used the central Slovak dialect as the bench mark.
However even to this day you can see a gradient from west of Cz to its east... And then from west of SK to its east.
Where the regions between the two seem to overlap a little.
Thus my idea here is this... If Slovak were not have been reformed by Štúr and the 3 Slovak dialects had remained intact... Would this gradient from Czech Republic to Slovakia be more obvious?
After all Moravian Czech is easier and more akin to Slovak than bohemian one, and the region of Moravia called Slovacko is even more similar... Almost like a true blend sometimes.
So.. in Theory... If this reform didn't happen and if Slovak dialects weren't diminished the Hungarian influence (which was part of the alarm for Štúr) .... Would czechoslovakia and the idea of Czechoslovak national unity be stronger and more possible? After all a level unity or at least strong Kinship/brotherhood was always there since Great Moravia really.
I have no idea about slovak/czech relations so I will not spew nonsense, but I do know enough that his comparison with serbia/montenegro is so off, it cannot even be taken seriously.
there are so many issues with this video and obvious as well as not so obvious reasons how everything happened the way it happened, a lot of things simplified, biased/ignorant perspective, people really should put their noses in some history books instead of watching frauds like Kraut. there are many like him, I guess it's an overall internet phenomenon.. no wonder people don't know sh1t about history and claim a lot of things that could not be further from the truth.
cheers
Czech an Slovak sound very distinct to me as a Pole. I understand Slovaks fairly well, and Czech not so much. So for me it feels like those are clearly separate languages.
As for your pint 2. Piłsudski wished Czechoslovakia as a part of his pan-Slavic federation so those seems to be convergent views between him and Kollár
přesně tak
Fuck I thought Europe was like Atlantis
That's fair. They do both start with a b after all
It is because thye're borht bleue
As an American, you’re spot on the money about the European Union existing to prevent war. It’s one of the reasons that the US government has been fairly consistently pro-EU. Because WWI and WWII taught us that if Europe starts having a major war, the US will inevitably get dragged into it eventually. So anything that helps prevent another massive European land war is good for us too.
Ha its questonable. Until Nixon US were for EU, after him they realize EU could be a competitor to their economy and also an ally with its own will.
Many problems exist in relationships between us.
Look at the videos history of eu american ralations by TEPSA I think and another why are eu us relations broken
european wars gave america 50% of the world's resources in the 1950s lol. the population didn't like the wars but the ever expansionist govt sure did.
America was never "forced" into any war. In the first world war, america wasn't willing to deal with the compromises that were imposed by a major european land war. They didn't want to limit trade and civilian movement between continents. The second world war was mainly a self-fulfilling prophecy imposed by US management of the situation in Asia. Both wars also had major anglophile factions that were very influential in the entry of America, especially in the first world war.
Quite simply, one of the best descriptions of post-Imperial Europe that I've ever read or even seen. Fantastic work.
krauts a bloody smart cookie i swear
Thanks for explaining France's unique position in the union. I keep hearing geopolitical analysts talk about France as an outlier but never understood why until now.
I think it was partly because the UK was the big outlier (but for slightly different reasons) until they left. Now the spotlight turns on France.
France is one of the only European nations to have a large-scale military presence in Africa in fact if I remember correctly France only just recently withdrawn a majority of military units in Mali.
@@celestialorb1680 France has continued to practice neo colonialism to this day. When Britain and France decolonised, France forced the newly formed countries into subservient contracts. This was most successful in Africa and is why France continues to interfere there.
@@jgw9990 France buy there ressources instead of China or Russia, it's France who give these ressources value as they will never use them if France stop buying ressources in Africa by making nuclear fusion in the 2050's the locals won't start building nuclear reactors the next day it's a win win situation both for France, the EU and African countries.
@@ommsterlitz1805 I think your African thralls might disagree
That Piłsudski fellow had a fantastically impressive moustache, didn't he?
I love Europe as a romanian. Its a way for us to understand that we can win a lot more if we can cooperate instead of fighting one another as it has been the case for thousands of years.
The EU isnt perfect however it has shown that it can still keep going despite the obstacles and crises.
Certainly isn't perfect, but it seems like a good idea and ideal to try and work on for now. Can't say I see much hope in the alternatives at least, none of those I've heard of seem to have nearly as much prospects to keep things peaceful and prosperous.
If world peace could be achieved eventually via a method like this in time as well, one can but try at least I think.
As an Austrian, I agree. And I hate what my government did to you guys this year. Not fair.
@@schtreg9140 Yes I agree thow we need to reform the eu in to a directly democratic leftist power house.
@@schtreg9140 No hard feelings, it's just politics, and you don't need to apologize. We retaliated and OMV profits were smashed by a tax introduced last week(Some billions) and Austrian banks are losing big. Austria did not win anything by doing this and lost a lot and it will continue to lose.. I mean, we have the biggest untapped oil and gas resources in the area, and until December you guys were the main partners in this win-win situation, and when I say win-win I am also speaking about bilateral high-level corruption.
@@schtreg9140 this year. But hopefully it wont be the case the next year.
Props to you for putting Atatürk in an objective light, and not be heavily skewed like how generally people see him. If Turkey has any differences from other Middle Eastern nations, it's all thanks to his work be it 20% economic growth rates or dramatically increasing the literacy rate of the country by introducing Latin letters. Granting workers and women rights as well.
Turkish view and practice of religion was always different from the other Middle Eastern nations. That helped Atatürk to accomplish his ambitions.
@@RandomGuy-df1oy Ottoman Empire itself was not the most heavy handed with religion because it was a multiethnic empire with several religious groups and practitioners. Modern day Turkey being the centre of power under the Ottomas, and the direct offspring of the empire, it also inherited this relatively liberal temperament.
Really like this video. How the European project evolves is going to be rather interesting. Hopefully it is something that adapts & becomes a framework for other regions to consider.
have you even watched yet lol
@@benmcgrath3175 its from 9 days ago bro
idk how it happened but yeah ig this video is 9 days old??
@@willb_177 It's called early access :)
It's going to evolve into a mixed-race united states of Europe. Just like the founder Kalergi intended.
Fantastically clever and well-written video.
One note at 18:30 : Piłsudzki was the leader of the Second Polish republic, not the first. The first would be what English speakers refer to as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The words "Commonwealth" and "Republic" are one and the same in Polish
任何一个民族和国家 真正开始进化的时刻 并不是他们喋喋不休的宣扬自己相比于别人的优越性的时候 而是他们开始自嘲 开始发现并承认自己的错误 自己民族的劣根性 并且为此做出改正的努力的时刻
As an American dealing with a nationalist right wing refusing to acknowledge that America has become a backwards place. And in order to remedy that backwardness we must embrace European social democracy.
> be Chinese
> open an English video
> write a comment in Chinese
> refuse to provide translation
> leave
@@davidperin9938 almost every nationalist/right wing american i know thinks america is declining.
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 here is the problem they refuse to acknowledge why it is declining. I.e allowing a massive rich poor divide that concentrates the vast majority of the wealth in the top 10 percent. Leading to an erosion of the power of the people to influence politics.
@@khai96x >Be Chinese
> Open an English video
>Write a comment in Chinese even though I speak English because otherwise why would I watch an English video
>Provide no translation
>Leave
A game theory observation; the importance of the rituals that kraut talks about is that they build trust and thereby make reciprocity possible. This makes it possible for national cooperation to become a positive sum game, which it seems the influence sphere/ imperialist view fails to recognise and consequently missed out on
"Europeans can meet the challenges of the coming century only by pooling their efforts. We are convinced that what they need is one Europe - peaceful and democratic, a Europe that maintains all its diversity and common humanistic ideas, a prosperous Europe that extends its hand to the rest of the world. A Europe that confidently advances into the future."
---Mikhail Gorbachev
He’s correct.
Indeed and I think what we need to do above all is avoid nihilism. Europe is not perfect and has many, many problems to work out that won't be easy to resolve.
However we need to keep our trust in the EU and that if we all work hard we can resolve these conflicts. That for every problem there is a solution and if there isn't we can find a way to work around it or deal with it. The biggest threat to Europe is actually internal far right policies that threaten to tear the culture of cooperation apart.
We shouldn't have delusions that it will be an easy thing or that no sacrifices will be needed. However we should keep the faith that we are all strong enough and wise enough to make it happen.
Far right politics feed off of nihilism and that the only way to improve ourselves is to tear others down.
So why didn't he back up his words by doing just that?
@@MaticTheProto But never meant what he said.
@@MrMarinus18 You trust the undemocratic eu? especially after the last few weeks?
Wow, what perfect timing! We just did a video on the empty chair crisis which was a really formative experience for modern Europe. Great video as usual!
The perspective of the Chinese viewer was SUPER interesting. I'd never thought about history like that.
That's because you're not Chinese.
It's like an American viewing European history from an American perspective or an Inuit viewing Chinese history from their perspective.
The Warring States/Spring and Autumn periods are a massive element of the Chinese cultural myth. The narrative goes that the major Chinese project of the first millennium B.C. was in finding a common bedrock. The Han identity and the Confucian societal model are seen as the legacy of that effort, and they're the reason China is such an anti-fragile entity today: China cares first and foremost about its own unity and security.
You can see the same attitude in their modern "assimilation projects" in Tibet and Xinjiang, with those regions being deemed of paramount geopolitical importance to Han security. That's why they're willing to risk the bad PR that comes with cultural genocide these days.
We all can learn a lot if we are willing to listen to each other.
@@Lobsterwithinternetexcept i as an italian and most of my friends in the classic classes think it this way
@@Boretheory Yeah most people, especially people politically apathetic or not all that interested in history, don't tend to think this way, but plenty of people DO think this way about the Roman Empire, and Europeans themselves have thought about Europe this way probably from the fall of Rome. Charlemagne had a whole restoration of Rome in the West going on precisely because there was a desire for that. The Roman Church has attempted to keep the fragmented Europe under it united as much as it could too. The Renaissance really brought back nostalgia for antiquity as well. The more anti-imperial peace and unity idea is comparatively much newer, maybe only 500 or 600 years, only really taking off in the last 300, compared to the imperial peace which has existed since Rome and was still present as a motivation in the Napoleonic Wars.
I love that someone is finally addressing that the French Empire still exists. With all the racism, abuse, exploitation and military intervention that French West Africa has suffered.
Are you french ?
Because France is not à empire
Propaganda
Nothing says colonialism like sending an expeditionnary force to Mali to save the country from falling apart and being overtaken by jihadis, loosing dozens of good frenchmen in the process, investing millions to rebuild the Malian army, permanently setting up bases in the desert to make sure that they'll never come back, only to be booted out of the country a few years later because the local junta decided they were going to use the evil white soldier as a scapegoat for anything going sour, and just leaving without sending any kind of bill whatsoever. Meanwhile our soldiers were fighting for their country, their youth obviously kept running away from it and illegaly immigrating en masse to France. And they just never thanked us for anything whatsoever. Damn, I guess we really are a shit empire.
IF FRANCO GERMAN RELATIONS FAILS THEY CANNOT BAILOUT EU. STOP WOKEISM BS
i love how portugal is having this back to back appearance at the very ends of the videos with their international ideas that i really hope aren't somehow linked to lusotropicalism
No I think it’s much more to do with geography. Like kraut pointed out in the Danube video there ought to be an EU cooperative block aiming to promote Atlantic trade with Portugal, Ireland, Iceland and the UK as they are separated from the Rhine, Danube, Baltic and Mediterranean regions.
Portugal is a periferic country in the European settings so we tend to look to the oceans and trade there. Sure it's easy with the Portuguese speaking countries but we tend to keep past trade partners (India, Indonesia, Japan, etc) to promote peace and trade. Lusotropicalismo was a last effort to make the Portuguese empire survive past the ww2 and cold war
@@Maia_Cyclist As a whole, I agree. Its moreso I worry about some general attitudes alot of people have in our country
@@avet4952 it's discontent with the politics and a lack of connection between the general public and political parties. Check partys like Volt Portugal IL or Livre more modern than the tradicional and not so extreme
"Before I explain the history of the EU, enjoy today's sponsor, a wargame."
Like taking sponsorship from KFC in a video about veganism.
To me, Europe is a place I'm too poor to travel to but admires every single bit of it
so the EU is to you, what Norway is to me
im danish
the East isnt that expensive tbh
@@4ren64 The flight ticket prices are already enough to put me in debt
@@crazydinosaur8945 Hvo intet vover, intet vinder!
@@noahthenorthern174 og intet taber
As a Brazilian, i really hope Mercosul can properly develop.
no, these unions between Hispanic-Americans and Portuguese-Americans always end up with Brazil having to have the external responsibility of a Germany without German resources, in the end this MercoSul only means that we have to support the socialist dictatorship of South America and throw the our people in the hole, we should put all these projects, especially peso-real far away from here
I hope not. As a Brazilian
@@joao.fenix1473 why not?
@@sabianaum7263 because policies between South American countries are quite erratic and tend to change a lot between governments
That is why the Central American countries and Mexico end up revolving in the orbit of influence of the US or China, because South America is too unstable
@@armandoventura9043it is not like Europa was that much stable at that time. This kind of political projects require decades, maybe generations, it is a long process but not at all impossible.
You must start from somewhere, Latin America has to stop to be the puppet of some imperialistic narcissistic nation.
I like that despite disagreeing with your Chinese viewer you still have the respect to refer to them as friend.
Being friends with people you disagree with is fun. No need to filter your opinions, no fear of echo chambers, monotony-breaking conflicts on demand...
@@MrSamulai I couldn't agree more
Is it common in European education to overlook the bloodshed of the Interwar Period? The California educational system of the mid-2000s that I learned modern history in very strongly emphasized that the Interwar conflicts were nothing less than a run-up to World War II. It was an explosion of nation-states but was never characterized as a golden age of anything. Except maybe silent expressionism.
From my own experience (French public education), we are mainly taught about the post WW1 trauma and the rise of totalitarian nations, not much else. In general Eastern Europe history is barely touched upon. I'm assuming nationalists took their vision of a golden age of sovereign state from their own bottom, altough I'm far from knowlegable on their rethoric.
Yup at least in western Europe as far as I know, we tend to overlook anything that happened east of Germany tbh
It would be hard to generalise about "European education" because every European country has a completely separate education system. For me personally as a Brit, it wasn't discussed much if at all even though I studied history, but that's only because my history course didn't cover that period. Also your channel is incredibly good, easily one of the best history channels on the website especially given how little attention the topics you cover get elsewhere.
In the Netherlands, we tend to focus on our own history and those of our close neighbours. It's mostly about being scared shitless about what was happening during WWI and to mostly zoom in on all the factors that led to the NSDAP claiming power post-WWI and then WWII, the occupation and a few other events. We were taught nothing about the Interwar Period in Eastern Europe.
В России мы это проходим просто потому что это настолько нас касалось что это невозможно упускать. Жаль только что все больше и больше в наших учебниках оправдывают белогвардейцев.
wow thank you for the great summary and over all view on the topic. I am Hungarian, and I always wondered why there were no reconciliations between Hungary and neighbouring countries, even tough I tought it would be beneficial for all of us. Sadly Not many of us Hungarians understand the EU, and why its there, hopefully in the future this can change.
We did have some official reconciliation with Serbia and compared to 20 years ago Hungarian relations with Slovakia and Romania are steadily improving. Governmental cooperation has been very well and the younger generations are less concerned about past grievances. (Schengen and the Internet probably helped a lot here).
Most far right troublemakers are relatively fringe with a small size loud bark and are usually funded by Russia.
The only country Hungary has a real problem with is Ukraine, because the Ukrainian officials can't help themselves but behave like dicks.
It doesn't help that from a Hungarian point of view Ukrainians and Russians are seen as the same, both are just slightly different sounding Soviets.
Hungary is a very peculiar country as it was either under other Empire or was imperializing other countries.
As I like to say to all Romanian and Hungarian nationalists, there are more people living in 2 Asian cities than there are Hungarians and Romanians on the planet. The feud is pathetic, we were besties until 1848.
@@DerDop I agree. our division only makes it easier for the west and Russians to control us. If we work together we actually have a chance to build something decent.
There were and are. The tripoint (hármashatár) at Rajka is a very good example of this. It is a point where the borders of Austria, Slovakia and Hungary meet. There are no walls, barbed wire or checkpoints. There is only a triangular table where the borders intercept.
The problem is 1) the continued presence of large Hungarian ("hostage") minorities in the successor states and 2) it is politically expedient for these countries to cynically exploit the animosity.
In Hungary, the remembrance of past grievances is kept continuously alive by the both nationalist provocation from neighbouring nationalist movements, and the constant stories of mistreatment of Hungarian minorities. This can be exploited for political gain, because it creates a "Hungary vs the world" kind of separatist mentality. This mentality then _demands_ rituals celebrating the historical Greater Hungary and the condemnation of the current status quo.
Then, on the other side, Hungarians remembering Trianon is exploited by the neighbours as they overreact to the smallest of gestures (last thing was Orban wearing a scarf with the picture of Greater Hungary) because by presenting an external enemy and especially an internal threat (the Hungarian minorities), cynical politicians can energise their electorate.
The way out would be:
Joint effort by all parties to emphasise the meaninglessness of borders in Europe (sadly can't happen with Orban fighting his war of independence against Brussels...)
Joint effort by all parties to downplay the real historic atrocities they suffered (not lying about them, just stop mentioning them all the time)
Hungary must stop the victim narrative (prevailing narrative is that Hungary was the defender of Europe against the Turks, but was then betrayed and thrown to the wolves by the West after WW1)
The neighbours must stop overreacting to minor gestures and must stop pretending Hungary has any capacity to threaten their territorial integrity (especially when it's now the poorest nation in the EU after Bulgaria and has its hands busy by trying not to collapse)
I think it is also worth pointing out that the United States, while being an Empire, is also kind of a case of political cooperation between groups towrds a common goal: the United States is not just a branding thing, and that while the Federal government has a lot of power, we have a lot of individual states within us that have more power than is sometimes acknowledged.
yea so how did germans or how do mexicans feel in ur notanempire
Especially when you consider Alaska and Hawaii + every other territory, including D.C.
Additionally, the United States's international relations position works as a formwork of cooperation for North America. In true Monroe Fashion, this network of cooperation extends towards the Pacific with Guam, A. Samoa, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan -- plus the 'Indo-Pacific Economic Framework'.
@@benismann ńáźì alert
@@benismann ignored. The Mexicans have been ignored, and for the foreseeable future, that's how they'll stay
Nice video as always. I completely agree with you that the EU should be seen as the prototype of the model for the post-colonial world
Thanks from Ukraine for your content and Happy New Year
Post-colonial and post-imperial as well. Also: Слава Україні!
Calling the EU post-colonial is laughable. The members abuse their membership to pressure trading partners, especially in Africa, into unfavorable deals. The EU is not post-colonial, it is neo-colonial.
“The worst thing that ever happened to west Africa was the fall of the *Malian* empire.”
I’ve often thought that a similar argument to the one made at the start about Rome could also be made about the west African region and the Malian empire.
Where he say that
I think you could also make the case for the Songhai empire to have that role.
The fall of Rome was good for Europe tho
Why though ?
@@eliasstenman3710 I see your point but in my mind Songhai is to Mali as Byzantium is to Rome. Some may disagree but I still view mail as being at the core and height of the Sehalian and west African imperial system.
Props to the animator during the section detailing Piłsudski. Buttery smooth, clever use of negative space, and aesthetically pleasing to watch
Commenting for the algorithm. Absolutely ,that animation was a joy to watch.
thanks for this comment, i almost fell of the chair because this part of the video was so delightful to watch i had to pause and take a long breathe.
it's interesting how that chinese viewer looks at the EU positively as a multipolar middle ground in between the US and China, when I know many Americans who view the EU positively in a similar manner but in the exact opposite direction, with the EU being an American aligned power with its democratic values.
I have the impression that France is not only using its African sphere of influence to increase its power in the EU, but is also using the EU to strengthen its African sphere of influence. The EU also has increasing centralist tendencies. If centralism in the EU prevails, the EU will become an instrument of imperial politics. For example, 40% of EU citizens could outvote the remianing 60% (this is how elections typically look) and send the future EU army to Africa.
You hit on something that I cut out of the video to finish it faster. It is in fact a valid political concern in modern Europe. Spanish, German, Dutch, and Belgian troops, assisted France in its military mission in Mali. An assistance that was granted due to French influence over both Africa and political influence in the E.U.
And it raises an issue that should be discussed: Should European troops fight the wars of a singular European state? In particular, if these wars are not even defensive?
Could you explain how 40% of eu citizens could out vote 60%, from my understanding that could only happen under the electoral system like first past the post which i think the uk is the only one in europe to use.
That is not a thing that could happen given the European parliament elects its members proportionally
@@Kraut_the_Parrot well, it was also because intervention in Mali had overwhelming public and political support in both Europe and across West Africa. The immediate success of the intervention was undermined by Mali overthrowing her own government (with the benefit of hindsight it's clear that Wagner were involved earlier than previously thought), but the fact remains that all of France's African allies, including the Malian government, and European participants in the intervention, had popular support across the board.
@@Victorvondoom9159 It doesnt quite elect proportionally. Smaller countries generally have more representatives pr. voter as a way to keep the EUP from becoming dominated by the countries with the largest populations in Europe. I assume this is what is being refered to.
As a Colombian, We should be one block, from Rio Bravo to Patagonia, united and collaborative! Europeans showed the world that it is possible to ve together while independent
Yeah i think that south american union would have much more sense than african union for example, and the big bonus would be the lgge that, at least foe the official ones are not as diverse as european or african ones, a lot of things would be much simpler and easier to do, and that union could wield some real power, but for that national countries, their elites would need to lose some power internally, that could be a problem, but overall it makes sense.
South American countries, however, suffer from grave political problems and instability dating back to decades - if not centuries - and until each individual country can solve those problems, a union of South American countries would be only like a dozen very sick men pretending they're one healthy person. Also, the effects of the Venezuelan diaspora show that in the event of a Schengen-like union of South America, the resulting displacement of people would be severely unequal and uncontrolled and it would destabilize more regions than it would improve.
Besides, in many ways, the continent was already united - under the influence of Brazilian corporations, which for decades steered the domestic policies of entire Latin American countries and put in and removed government officials across the region as they pleased.
@@stalwartarjuna True, just as Europe had too, for millennia even. Didn't stop them to get over them and change their ways. The difference between Europe and us is that we already know that it is possible and it works. So thanks, fellow Europeans, for being trailblazers!
Of course you should - but not under Colombia. Panama didn't like it.
Estoy totalmente de acuerdo, pero los problemas politicos por los quales pasamos son muy grandes para permitir algo similar a la UE. Tenemos que cambiar mucho antes de todo eso
This might just be one of the most important contemporary political videos I've seen this year.
Hello Kraut, I'm glad that you finally started talking about Czechoslovakia in the context of Europe's history. However there are some statements that I disagree with/would like to comment on or are incorrect and I would like to point them out. I have seen some comments about some of the topics that I want to mention already and therefore I will most likely repeat what was mentioned already (also for context I'm Czech):
1. 6:56 the reason for Czechoslovak-Polish war at least from Czechoslovak perspective was for the control of Cieszyn/Těšín and the railway line on the left bank of the river Olza. Also there was the problem of Silesia being located in 3 separate states and most of Silesians (to my knowledge) were Poles at that time which gave Poles the justification to go into that war (tho the economic factor cannot be dismissed). Funny fact: I have seen some reports mentioning that to this day there are some Silesians in Poland who would like to have their own state. A state of Silesia.
2. 7:38 I think that good name/label for self limiting nationalism would be patriotism tho I understand that the waters would be somewhat muddied by existence of American patriotism. Also I think that drive/desire to dominate other nations by nationalism stands from the believe in their superiority over other nationalities and that self limiting nationalism doesn't have this desire because it doesn't see other nationalities as somehow inferior. It is instead replaced by the pride in ones nation to the extend that others might and should do the same, ie. its own nation is good but not necessarily better than any other nation.
3. 8:24 Never in my life have I heard that Slovaks were somehow part of Czech nation or that they should. The concept of Czechoslovakia simply came from necessity. At the time of the creation of the first Czechoslovak republic both Czechs and Slovaks had large minorities of Sudetens Germans in case of Czechs and Hungarians in case of Slovaks in their territories respectively and since Czechs and Slovaks were basically brothers, they could cooperate together and therefore lessen the ability of these minorities to destabilize the newly created state. It was to make it more paletable to the winners of the WW1 to allow them to create state for Czechs and Slovaks (also the size of such a state was a factor in case of new conflicts). There is a reason why the dissolution of Czechoslovakia happened so peacefully because Czechs never saw Slovaks as part of the same nation nor necessarily state and why Slovaks took the chance to create their own separate state after Czechia became the German Protectorate.
Also I would like to mention George of Poděbrady (Jiří z Poděbrad) and his idea of proto European union/OSN. The idea was that conflicts between member states were to be solved peacefully and unite European states/kingdoms against the Turk expansion.
Anyway, the video is good as always and it was still insightful. Can't wait for the next one.
Hello Zeit Geist, everyone and every nation has its spin on the europe and the EU. But the fact, that poles, czech and germans can have discussion about Silesia without getting violent is an achievement in itself.
The fact that all former sowjet occupied states accept their borders is something you dont see in other parts of the world.
Except for HU, but that’s a WW1 story😄 Gruesse
@@adamz7038 And some of our older generation as well.
Accepting the "Oder-Neisse-Line" was a big step for many "displaced" .
Hungarians, damn they havent raided us german for at least 800years.
While defeating the french laid the foundation of the german empire, defeating the hungarians was the foundation of the holy roman empire.
If you do Gruesse, go full German, Grüße^^
The "ß" makes the difference between german german and swiss german.
Yeah. The third point surprised me as well. I am a Czechoslovak child, so I spent my childhood in both countries and I have never encountered a serious claim about Slovaks being part of Czech nation. Language is different, also religious identity is much more important in Slovakia than it is in Czechia. Plus the folklore is different. Talking about nations in Central/Eastern Europe I would also like to remind people about Rusyns and their unfortunate fate, there is a high number of them in the eastern parts of Slovakia.
My favorite joke about the UN is by the onion.
I can remember it’s direct quote but it goes like: “UN increases training of peace soldiers to properly watch Genocides”
I must say that i am increasingly relieved and enjoying it when I see posts and videos that neither fear complexity and oversimplify, nor hide behind some form of codified language. It takes time to explain things. Leaving things open that are open and for discussion or the future to show. Well done! Also it's great to see less known figures from history that may not have had a brilliant success but simply hit the core of the problem or found some interesting (albeit mystified and romanticised) perspective and picture to see things. One needs to be very careful though with this European cooperation, welfare and prosperity thing. There is still another perspective that the EU may not bring peace in: in-vs-out, and have-lots vs have-nots and the asymmetry in political influence.
From the beginning of this video I kept thinking about Piłsudski it really shows the amount of work you put into your videos
As someone who’s first major political involvement was Brexit some grand RETVRN TO EMPIRE was absolutely not what drove people to vote leave. The only people claiming that were schitzos and remainers insisting that the Leavers wanted that.
What got people’s back up more than anything was first the closed off clique of politicians commission that made all the laws that would be voted on and contained some very unpopular figures (unpopular in both Europe and the UK, if Von der Linde being burnt in effigy by the Bunderswehr was anything to go by) and the wasteful way certain things in the EU were done
Then being fobbed off in negotiations by an EU that didn’t understand that Brexit was a large political movement (with most political parties promising a referendum as a major vote winner) confirmed in many people’s minds the EU wasn’t willing to change or take genuine anger at the situation seriously.
Anyone but British people having legislative power of the UK was always going to be a hard sell. The UK also saw the EU’s movement towards centralised control as little more than an attempt to make the USA EU style since no one could propose legislation outside the commission
I really think the EU would be better off not trying to become the centralised primary legislature of the nation states of Europe, its going to lead to more resentment. Cos if the EU fucks anything up (looking at you delayed vaccine rollout that took months to get a contract with its myriad phama companies) the entire project takes a massive hit
Hello. There might be a hiatus between the nature of the Brexit debate, whiwch is the way the Brexiteers presented it to the population, and their own ideas and objectives.
In essence (and that's also illustrated) by your post, it shifted attention on everything but oneselves. When you do that, all of the above in your post seems pointless.
@@nico210 Your post is incoherent
What does that even mean “shifting attention from oneself” (I assume you mean brexiteer which isn’t true). This is a debate not about brexiteers but about the EU. The EU’s actions and inactions were central to the leave vote regardless about your feeling on the matter.
With the referendum being that close I really think a more responsive EU actually willing to do take certain demands seriously would have made the difference
@@maxkennedy8075 My post was a response to your post and your post was about the Brexit(eers), not about the EU. You think your post was about the EU, my answer is that it's only about the delusions and myths about the EU and Britain propagated during the referedum debate. Basically imaginary Britain vs a imaginary EU, and a way not to look properly in the mirror.
Which part is not coherent?
Europe's division was a big reason it didn't stagnate like China did. Failing to evolve would mean your neighbour would defeat you. China was an evolutionary dead end pre-century of humiliation, they had no need to evolve and probably would have remained a pre industrial farming society. From this perspective, the EU means Europe has lost its greatest strength, the conflict which caused its evolution.
Very thought-provoking comment, especially that last sentence. A rare perspective I've never heard before, and it might very well be true.
Unity can certainly encourage stagnation and it might explain why the Romans rarely innovated after taking control of the Mediterranean.
But in a more and more Globalised World there are new Rivals to be found
@@Royal-sp9pb To me though I think we have to ask ourselves is stagnation really a bad thing. You cannot have infinite growth. You either gain more territory or can't keep up. But, the Earth is limited unless we go to space. But then we have the solar system. But what if we can't get past that? There will always be a roadblock to infinite growth. Is conflict really the solution? Like a phoenix die and rebirth? The peoples thousands of years ago no longer exist. There is no Sumerian, Hittite, or roman peoples left. There are a few Assyrians which is a miracle in of itself. The last old Europeans before Indo-Europeans are still alive in Basque. But, people die out and new people create new things. But, is that really good? Right now, in our globalized world we're seeing fewer individual cultures being relevant. more people try to emulate the west and learn English forgoing their native language. I don't know if thats a good thing. But, I think its something we need to discuss. Do we let conflict happen to let new ideas flourish and new people to emerge? Or do we embrace peace, globalization, stability, and stagnation and try to live with that.
As a Lithuanian I grew up somewhat hating Pildsusky (butchered name) as in history classes it’s told that he did not recognized Lithuanian language and wanted to make Polandised federation alongside giving orders to Zeligovsky (another butcher) to create an unreal army mutiny and conquer Lithuania and Vilnius (read more, it’s somewhat sad to see previous brothers to go at each other’s throats). After changes in education system in Lithuania and learning more, I know see Pildsusky as a flawed man with great, but flawed ideas.
It's not easy being Russia's neighbour.
He was a Lithuanian in a very old sense strongly attached to the legacy of the grand Duchy but having nothing in common with lithuanian nation-state.
To be frank, as a polish student of history, I can tell you quite confidently that (at least in the academic circles of my university) the glorification and the Cult of Marshal Piłsudski, which was so prevalent over the years, is now being steadily torn down. He's facing much more scrutiny for both his foreign and especially internal policies. I can't with certainty capture the opinion of the general public, but I feel that it is also shifting towards a more critical view of his actions.
Most people agree that he was instrumental, or at the very least incredibly important for Poland during its early years of independence, but his actions later on leave a lot to be desired. And, while his idea of Prometheanism was something that definitely had some potential, at least on paper, it would have been very difficult or even impossible to implement during the turbulent political situation at the time. Also he had always put Polish interests first on the diplomatic stage, so it's not that far of a stretch that his Prometheanism Project would have Poland take the center stage in this new "Cooperative Collective".
Okay, that's enough of an essay, bye.
Yeah, lots of people who have some good ideas... but also many a flaw. We can but hope I guess to try and find the good ideas thought of over time and try to assemble them in to yet better new ideas.
Hopefully we'll have some success at that.
@@qqtrol1774 He was more of the Vilnius citizen, so considered himself such. Also recently learned, that he actually spoke Lithuanian alongside Polish as his first language.
As a portuguese I find it very odd seeing the portuguese pointing the way forward in the end
As an American I had the same idea as the Chinese viewer that the European union was an attempt to gain enough collective political power to create a European sphere of influence to compete with America and China spheres of influence. i guess its more a framework to get separate nation states to work together. I hope that the system does spread more and nation states are going to work together better
I do too. This is the Realist worldview. Keep in mind that this is Kraut presenting his Liberal worldview (Liberal in the context of international affairs, not Liberal as in the free market or LGBT rights). I still recognise that it is a good alternative way of seeing things, but the Liberal theory is a bit flimsy atm.
Keep in mind that this is his way of seeing it, his point of view, but that's not necessarily what "the EU is about" according to everyone. I'm European (from Italy) and I view the EU as a way for Europe to gain collective political influence to stand its ground against giant countries like India, China and the US, and I hope for this reason that Europe will follow the path of integration and unity in the future, and so do many other European people too. To just dismiss the EU as "nations cooperating" seems unfair to me because it ignores European institutions such as the European Parliament, directly elected by European people, and the ideas of a lot of people who genuinely feel European and hope that European countries can recognise that they are much more similar than they are different. The UN is "nations cooperating", the EU is an "ever closer union", a political entity that calls its citizens "europeans".
@@talete7712 The EU will not become a collective political influence until Europeans respect each other's geopolitical needs -and thus far that has proven to be impossible.
@@stephenjenkins7971 are you from an EU country? By your name I think you aren't. If you aren't then you have no say in this. Why do you even care so much?
@@talete7712 I was giving an opinion on the state of the EU. Am I wrong? Seeing as you're trying to deflect to where I live, I'd say you know I'm correct.
Basically what the Chinese guy was saying is: China did ethnic cleansing better than any other empire, so they became a successful empire for thousands of years. Meanwhile, facts are ignored such as the various subversive of the imperial rules and cultural domination by various outside forces that make China of thousands of years ago not the same China today. There has never been a proper Chinese Empire that lasted for thousands of years. I have met someone who is a doctoral candidate from China completing her thesis in Australia, and she doesn’t know Vietnam exists, and she kept insisting that Vietnam is a province of China. Like what kind of medieval propaganda they teach over in China? Also on that topic Vietnam is an example of Imperial China’s methods and the failure of said methods. They attempted to assimilate Vietnam by immigration and cultural conversion in ancient time. But the reverse happened and the Chinese immigrants became the major force of resistance against further Chinese subjugation. That is why in modern time you often hear about the Chinese government spying on their young students oversea. China’s superiority complex toward its neighbors is also a historic issue that resulted in even further division within the Sinosphere. In modern time Japan, Korea and Vietnam have this thing going where they examine their culture and emphasise, exaggerate and export the parts that make them unique, especially if those parts distinguish them from China, and one another. Because China’s method has always been “I see Chinese culture there, so it is my land.” It created a reaction from its neighbours to establish themselves as unique culture, even though said countries were heavily influenced by Chinese culture. It’s obviously easier to subvert a country’s government when they share the same language and custom, much harder when your target countries use different alphabets, speak different tongue.
Chill, she doesn’t know, and most probably don’t care
Brasileiro aqui. Obrigado aos meus manos portugueses que gostam do mercosul!!!
Sadly there is this strange divide in South America between nations with left-wing and right-wing goverments.
If South America could just go pass idelogical division...
@@ominosentenzioso5100 This is something I always hated/disappointed me from UNASUR. It was supposed to be a South American light EU but instead, due to the lack of cooperation between members and our leaders' ideas of a leftist, united South America instead of just a more united one, is what lead to its eventual demise as left wing politicians were replaced by right wing ones.
Hi! Huge fan! As a Canadian I feel both our economy and politics are deeply interwoven with that of the United States. I think because I never got to learn much about the EU. I am fascinated by the prospect of more political cooperation from nations especially in Europe. Will you be doing any videos involving Canada? Recently, we seem very divided here politically in Canada and COVID seemed to make it worse. The trucker convoys and the pm evocation of emergency powers caught me off guard and I would very much like to here your opinion on what is transpiring here in Canada.
Love Canada from PL
It won't happen, but I lowkey want Canada to join the EU. And to stop its mining companies being such dicks to the latin American/African nations who should otherwise be its allies. Because that would be a way for Canada to buy into a post-imperial world, and create levarage for itself against the US. The irony of this is that Canada is an empire, which still denies sovereignty to the Indigenous peoples within its borders, and fails to uphold the treaties. However the EU contains similar ironies, both with respect to Romani people who barely exist in the European imagination, and to national minorities within national borders (France, Spain, and the UK while it was still a member are still empires even without overseas colonies).
Southern neighbor here, florida man to be exact, he has a friend who is going over Canadian history. I think in his mexico series he links to the channel making it
The issue with Canada is 9 times out of 10 it's the same story as The United States. But like 30% smugger.
@@caiwilliams2905 somewhat tangent to the subject matter, but what would sovereignty of indigenous peoples in Canada look like in practice ? And why do you think that hasn't happened yet? I'm a leaf too btw
The European Union doesn't exist without the American security blanket.
It will if certain vast immediate neighbour with lots of military potential stops being vast or having military potential 😉
And if you are into conspiracy theories that _might_ be a reason why US hesitates to provide Ukraine with means to deliver a knockout blow.
@090giver090 if that's the case (and as an American, I assure you that it isn't), why don't one of the European powers provide those weapons?
@@Sometimes_Happiness As I said it's just and exercise in conspiracy thinking I found funny.
But I still believe that European dependency on US for security would diminish a lot when there would be no potential danger from the east.
I swear Kraut has been reading my university thesis 😂 First European regionalism and now Intermarium! Love it!
A very interesting take on Turkish Secular Kemalism. I like this take and will read up more on it 👍🏼
It is quite an important and outlined aspect of Kemalism actually.
Other than the countless times it was mentioned directlt, in passing it was almost always alluded to.
For example, the phrase "the people of Anatolia" and others of similar meaning were used almost synonymously Turks. This shows that Kemalism links Turks directly to the land they inhabit, and creates the sense that Turks are already where they belong: and therefore rejects the idea of expansion and empire.
I think Atatürk also had similar ideas to some of those underlining the EU, and could be considered a figure similar to Józef Piłsudski.
The self-contained nationalism has already been mentioned.
One of his best known sayings can be translated as "Peace at home, peace in the world".
He was an early prominant figure in peaceful reconciliation. He built memorials for the dead allied soldiers in Gallipoly, which had signs telling the families of the casualties that their kin are resting in a friendly nation. He also welcomed the British king and other heads of state, with whom Turkey had not long ago had been at war with.
These threeset up a non threatening envoirment which would clear the way for cooparation.
Although the isolationist aspect does contrast with the ideas of EU. Although this can be understood by how anatolia was hunger for attension an care.
I would argue that the fall of the Ottoman Empire was not the death of Turkey's empire. Because the Ottomans did not use empire to develop or support Turks, but only the Sultan his circle. So when Turkey emerged, it had been neglected by the Sultans, who had focused all on empire, and needed time to its self.
unfortunately it is flawed, if Ataturk and Turkey actually stayed true to it's "contained nationalism" then they would not squash any attempts of Kurdish Independence or autonomy
@@regg41 this is one of the most braindead comments I’ve ever read. We are all stupider thanks to your comment.
@@regg41It isn’t. The autonomy desire reflects only a minority of Kurds and majority are complacrnt with living together. This is what racist Europeans who founded their nation states on one single race cannot understand. Even though the the term Turk refers to a race as well, Ataturk’s understanding of Turk referred to various ethnicities that implicitly accepted a social contract. The social contract is that the people that did not try to break away but united with the remaining people to defend anatolia in the war of independence is called Turks, and the country is theirs collectively. Ataturk’s definition of nation relied on that idea, various ethnicitied that chose to live under one establishment, similar to an American nation system. You might be an indian or egyptian, but that doesn’t change the fact that you are American in broad terms. Same applies here. Even I am quarter Circassian and half Laz, and still considered Turk nation-wise. It doesn’t change the fact that I am not racially Turk, however those two concepts are not in conflict with each other. Even the Kurd related riots back in the foundations were not ethnic rebellions but religious ones, trying to bring sharia back and abolish the newly established secular system. This way of thinking is an inheritance of a multi-ethnic empire. Same applies to Russia to some degree. I remember reading the interview of a Turkish journalist Banu Avar and president Dagestan (autonomous region of Russia close to Azerbaijan). Avar asks the president regarding how they can manage having multiple identities and whether they choose one. The president gives a perfect example saying that: “ You are Banu of Gimli village (the village she is actually from). Outside the Gimli village, you are an Avarian. Outside Avaria, you are a Dagestani. Outside Dagestan, you are a Russian.” So, he says that, she presents herself as a Russian to the world, a Dagestani to Russians, an Avar to Dagestanis and from Gimli, to other Avars.
Poland promoted Prometheism and then got punished for it by the empires they wanted to rebel against.
It's like poetry. It's a shame, obviously but it's also interesting.
You're right it is a tragic moment of history, and Intermarium SHOULD have happened, however Poland's territorial ambitions for Lithuanian, Ukrainian and Czech territories somewhat detract from that sympathy towards their second republic.
@@alexcap755 Yeah, I don't know what they were thinking.
How interesting that great peace-loving poles in 1920s somehow ended up themselves becoming oppressors and conquerors after taking Czech land and west Ukraine and Belarus. Oh wait, they always were like this, they just got unlucky and lost to other empires.
@@sirgromith They were trying to recreate the borders of PLC. It didn't help that many people in power in Poland were of mixed ethnicity (Piłsudski was Polish/Lithuanian) and didn't want a Poland that's just for the Poles.
It seems that the ideology of one man can't change a nation and his nation has became the very thing he tried to destroy.
As a French, I was not aware of what you talked about in the last part.
This was a very insightful video, thank you very much
La France n'est plus un empire c'est des connerie
To be honest, I wasn't aware either. It would make sense, considering we're one of the biggest wheat producers, but it sounds kind of off
Because it's highly exaggerated and false, France is the country that beneficiate the least from the EU, the only danger in Europe is Germany not France, it's Germany who wish to dominates the EU not France again, and it's also Germany fault if there is a war in Ukraine as they financed Russian military for decades and still does with billions upon billions of € every day for gas
@@ommsterlitz1805 true, I'm surprised by Kraut's (apparent) naiveté around Germany. The way the video is framed makes it sound like there's this big warm community between Germany and it's eastern counterparts, united by a common rejection of imperialism. I'd at least recommend people watch Real Life Lore's video on "Germany's Catastrophic Russia Problem" as a form of rebuttal. Shroeder's involvement in the Nord Stream Pipeline is a textbook case of institutional corruption, and it's consequences almost brought Europe down on it's knees when the Ukraine War started.
@@ommsterlitz1805 "France is the country that beneficiate the least from the EU" - this is not true by any metric, but I really just wanted to invite you to analyze the EU common agricultural policies and than reflect on your understanding of France's position on the EU again.
I usually like your content but there are things bugging me here :
- UK not being a nation state but an empire is a weird take. What made France a nation state and not an empire then ?
- the position you have on France is kind of demonising. In what way is France nei colonising Africa? I don't mean to say they aren't but there are things to discuss :
- the argument about the entry of Urkaine in the EU is irrelevant. First because other countries also are reluctant to let them enter, Germany for example. Second, yes policies on agriculture would be turned on their head with Ukraine entry. Saying that France should accept cheap uranium for the end of its agricultural sector is ignoring the lives of the farmers that would lose their jobs (lives that are already difficult).
If you think in term of military presence in Africa, it was required in 2013 by Mali but was extended to several countries in the subsaharan region. It should be noted to say that a military presence in this region contribute to European security. France and Britain being the only two countries with expeditionary forces in Europe, it's no wonder why it's France there considering the special relation it has with its former colonies. May I had France left Mali after their demand but the few troops of Germany there will stay until 2024 despote what is wanted by Mali.
About Uranium, some number on uranium origins for various uranium importées around the world would have been nice to make a point of comparison. If Niger Uranium is that cheap and only needs to travel half the distance of Canada to France, why France buy 50% from Canada ?
I could mention other countries that slow European integrations :
- Ireland and Netherlands act as tax heaven in the EU, sucking tax revenues from other countries
- Doesn't spain have a special relationship with South American countries ? In what way does it not slow the EU to advance then ?
- didn't Germany slow EU progression by being thus dependent to Russian gas ? Didn't it help them stay ahead in term of industry/economy and helped them leverage their power in the EU ? Is Germany afraid to lose its leadership to France in the EU now that there is no Russian gas anymore and that UK left ?
I have never heard that argument about the relation between France and Africa slowing down EU integration, but it makes not a lot of sense to me as I can point a lot of other reasons about other countries that seem more reasonable and grounded
I agree totally on the France issue, I think it’s a red herring when many other EU states are drags on greater integration.
But I have to differ on the UK which is still an Empire. Ask an English person and they won’t see one but go to Wales and especially Scotland and Northern Ireland and you’ll probably find a large minority/majority who consider themselves attached to an empire against their democratic will.
To have separatism in such close proximity to the seat of power is quite destabilizing and the English will have to find a way to peacefully deal with this before their empire disintegrates entirely. The EU was a good sticking plaster on that separatism but now it’s gone the pull will only get greater.
This is simply not an issue in France where separatism is a very minor issue in most of mainland France and one defeated by economic necessity in its colonies and Corsica.
His numbers about Uranium furnishers for France are completely false.
Canada accounts for only a small fraction of france's uranium, Niger is at 17 %, and Khazakstan is the n1 furnisher, a bit a ahead of Niger and Uzbekistan.
Je sais pas si t'es Français but you're absolutely right, I was thinking of making a comment but then I saw yours so thanks
The Chinese perspective reminded me of a Catholic Medievalist approach to the concept of Empire by which the main political relationship is Emperor-Subject, allowing for local self-government while retaining central sovereignty. An evolution of this concept could be beneficial to the EU, as I have seen some EU supporters who are a bit too happy with national dissolution
No, it would only be detrimental. The main problem with the HRE was that italian states did whatever they wanted and the german states plotted to put their favorite emperor on the throne and get more power, ultimately failing. Back then it was impossible to impose the sovereign power over europe, but now the EU can thanks to technology. The best solution for a peacful and united Europe is to yield more power to the central government in order to correct rogue members such as Hungary.
@@redcrown5070 I disagree we need more locised power Europe soud be a union of its people and not it s states.
@@redcrown5070 The HRE existed somewhat well for 1000 years, and although in the end it faced all of those problems, it existed for a thousand years decentralized without many problems
isn't that the doctrine of subsidiarity? That's still part of catholicism to this day
I think the European Union is the direct heir of the HRE, with its good and bad things. In great way, it is the brainchild of german catholics, which where the great beneficiaries of the HRE system.
Mercosur as an institution is not that ambitious, it comprises only Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. It's a customs union that never developed into an economic union and it actually has so many asterisks, small print and exceptions that it's more like a free trade agreement. I don't know if Mercosur can be compared to the EU in the building of a post imperialistic world.
That being said, south america has the Unasur, which is a project focused on security and infrastructure, that may develop into a deeper integration, but since it was created by 'pink tide' politicians from the 2000's, when the tide was over latin american politicians abandoned the project (allegedly due to disagreements if Venezuela should be a part of it, but mainly because they thought that the project was too ambitious and each latin american nation state future lies instead with stronger ties to the U.S, China, Africa or any combination of countries rather than their neighbors). Right wing politicians created the Prosur, which is Unasur 2.0, which is fine, it's less ambitious and more slow paced, but still, both Unasur and Prosur are far from the grand vision of the EU.
My point being, I don't know if latin america is building this post imperial order alongside Europe and Africa. Very long text to disagree with such a minor point of your video, I know, I'm sorry
It also doesn't help that Uruguay has recently violated the MercoSur agreement by independently making a trade agreement with China, without facing much of any repercussions from the rest of MercoSur for the violation.
In it's origins it was very ambitious with the intent to emancipate latin america from imperialism, especially from the USA. Right now? USA has proven to be very much still in charge, and it looks like turning to China will be the only way to stay afloat as to not end up like Africa. Lithium might be the last chance we have at emancipation but as dictatorships, international debt and soft coups are making a comeback it looks like we will be under imperialism until the collapse of the USA
@@rodrigoskop6886It's a shame we (Americans, Latin Americans) don't have a similar relationship as the EU states do.
In the end, we need money. The best is example is how a pro US government like Bolsonaro developed strong economical relationships with China and Russia.
South America has many challenges right now, yeah. But I think the point being made in the video and I think is at least some what reasonable is, is that perhaps the EU could try and help facilitate bringing this idea to other parts of the world as well.
For instance if the EU created a carrot with some kind of South American EU equivalent, for instance by a favorable free trade agreement or other favorable cooperative elements. Then it could perhaps convince some of the South American countries to try more seriously to make such a system work. After all, there would be something quantifiable to gain then for the price of entry.
It's something to at least consider as possibly a good idea to try I think.
Dude, your work is always so impressively well written and thoughtful. I hope to achieve your level of writing one day.
Let me ask you, how much time do you take to research videos like this one? Does your education background helps you with it?
Thank you and congrats for the vid, Kraut. :)
I think your analysis of France was correct in the 80s (and generally speaking a large part of the early history of the EU), but is outdated in the modern period. African states can say "no" to France and do so all the time. There is no longer a French Empire, and there is no longer a Françafrique (in term of the ability of France to impose by force its will on African nations after the decolonisation, of course economic links remain but they are no longer maintained through force ; those economic links might be called "Françafrique" but I think it is not a good idea to use the same word to describe modern relation between France and Africa and relation between France and Africa during the 70s, 80s and 90s).
Tight economic links are still present, but they are fading away. Recently MSC (an Italian company) bought Bolloré Africa Logistic (a French logistic company operating in Africa). Africa (and west Africa) is not the French playground that it was before. French companies are still present in Africa but it is a result of history rather than an advantage of France over other countries. When companies with superior capital want to push away French companies they can do so with ease. This is not only true with other european countries : when Chineese companies build infrastructure in ex-colonies, they can do it and France is not interfering.
When French military forces are deployed in African nations, they do so with the consent of the local government. When the military junta decided to kick France out of Mali, France had the motive and the means to overthrow the Malian government like it did before when ex-colonies refused to cooperate with France, but simply left.
Finally I think your example with uranium is not very good, because most of the value created by the nuclear industry comes from fuel processing (turning uranium ore and depleted fuel into new fuel) and power plant operation/construction. Both of those activities are mostly done in France. Uranium mining is not really relevant to the nuclear industry. It is at least several order of magnitude less important to the nuclear industry compared to the importance of oil (or gas) to the chemical industry for example. The competitive edge that France has (or more accurately had) was the ability to quickly and cheaply build nuclear reactors. EDF can deal easily with an uranium two times more expensive, however they cannot deal with the Flammanville's EPR cost. French electricity production was recently at risk not because of a lack of uranium but because EDF struggled to fix a design flaw in several reactors.
Generally speaking economic links between France and Africa are not really that important anymore to France and no longer give France a relevant competitive advantage. France is a service based economy, and the large marjority of its trade is done with the EU, China and the US. Trade with Africa is not the engine of the French economy like it was in the past. And I am pretty sure that the lower importance of trade with Africa is the main reason why France is no longer heavily invested in Africa. The most important French military intervention in Africa in the past two decades was Libya, and it was a case of Sarkozy (then president of France) being corrupted and acting for himself rather than a grand French strategy. (Sarkozy is so corrupt that he is the first French president to be sentenced to prison under the 5th Republic, it is that bad)
There is still a strong, (imo) legitimate anger towards France. And France is by no mean stopping to interfere with African politics out of good will (I believe they mostly do so because of lower economic interests in Africa). France is also probably going to keep being very important to African politics. But it won't be because France can conscript Africans to fight their wars, or because France can murder African politicians freely when they prevent French businesses to profit. Also, France's influence in Africa is no longer dominant, Russia or China can come and easily challenge France in western Africa. I believe european countries can absolutely come to Africa and developp stronger (and healthier) parternships than France but have so far lacked any motivation to do so in general. Thus I think describing modern France as an empire is innacurate. However it used to be accurate, and kept being accurate far longer than all of the other European countries (except Russia perhaps but I think you were only speaking about EU countries).
Yeah, I'm sure those French colonies in Polynesia love having thermonuclear bombs exploded on their islands and atols. No French pressure there. Completely voluntarily.
@@LarsPallesen Fair enough, but when did it happen ? Before the 2000s. Bad things have absolutely happened but France is no longer doing that. That was the point of my comment. France was an empire. That is a fact. But France is no longer an empire. It is a fact too. France can no longer go to French Polynesia and tests nukes.
@@LarsPallesen France doesn't have colonies, but oversea territories. Difference is everything.
We should bild Africa railways and carbon-free power planets nuclear solar wind for free in Africa. To pay back the dead of our colonial past. France could build reactors ther why not.
@Talleyrand Fan Regulation is only part of the problem. The other part is economy of scale. The cost of a nuclear reactor go down when you can build several reactors of the same type, because 1) R&D cost will be spread over more reactors 2) Your workforce will get better at building reactors 3) You will be able to invest into economies of scale.
The problem of the Flammanville's EPR is that a single reactor was built. If two or three EPR had been built following Flammanville's reactor the cost of the later reactors would have been much lower and companies would have invested more into their tools and workforce.
The new plan is to produce EPR2 by pairs and build a batch of at least 6 of them which should hopefully solve most of these issues.
EPR which were produced by pairs like Taishan or Hinkley Point C have issues but are much less problematic compared to Flammanville's EPR.
As a Chinese person, I wish the country never unified and proceeded along the European path. There’s pride for having the oldest continuous civilization state yes, but life for the average person was abject misery for most. The unified state encouraged stasis. There might have been an alternate history where competition amongst (at the time advanced) Sinitic states brings about an early scientific revolution. The existing history supports this. Some of the greatest philosophical and technological innovations took place during the warring states period pre unification
My point exactly. I am a Greek and I completely agree with you. The EU must never unify
It is a sad truth, that wars breed the fastest innovation, as people make up technologies to kill each other better as well as to protect themselves against one another. Truly a sad thing to observe about humans wherever you look. I personally do not see any point in being proud of some random (I had no influence on where and when I was born) factoid of any culture. I would not be a proud "X", based on "X" size, history, conquers, etc. Actually, I want to humbly acknowledge my place in the world, which I share with so many other humans. Maybe I am influenced by being Slovak. We, Slovaks, never colonized, never dominated other nations, never initiated wars (we were just dragged along by external forces into them). We just wanted to live peacefully on the land we were born in, use our native language for communication also in churches and official documents, making up our own rules. Slovakia has no big "global" history, heck, most people in the world could not even find Slovakia on a map. And we have only a handful big personalities that are somewhat internationally known. But that is OK. It is still better than build an illusion of greatness around some "big superpower" myth, as it can and often does lead the simpler minded people of "big superpower" into arrogance against other "small" countries/nations. Having a "big superpower" history is a double-edged sword and it can harm small nations as well as the big ones, if they fall for their own lies and stories.
Congratulations to croatia for joining schengen and the eurozone, you already have new air routes to neighbouring states being introduced due to the cost savings. Hopefully a ferry route from patras to split will happen in the next decade/and hsr from trieste to zagreb to graz.
French citizen here.
Skipping all the talk about unfair advantages of colonial empire, I want to bring to your attention that the french farmers have suffered quite a bit since the EU introduce "fair competition" on the market. I guess you can easily imagine why: since there are no more restrictions between european contries (no toll) and it is deemed unfair to subsidize freely a business, french farmers have a harder time maintaining their financial situation in comparison to more poorer countries where wages are lowers which in turn allow for lower production prices.
This situation causes the farmer in my country to have one of the highest suicide rates, great inbalance in gender representation and to be a declining part of the population. You could argue that the problem will solve itself when the farmer population finally die out but that would means several things:
1 - most of the population in France would end up in big cities, confirming that small cities and villages are now deserted
2 - an increasingly inbalanced trade deficit for France (which is already quite worrying in 2022)
3 - importing food would emit quite a bit of carbon + cost a lot of electricity to maintain the food in a good state during the travel and distribution phase
Speaking of resentment against someone in the UE, you might find resentment against french, but the fact that Germany has had such a favorable trade balance for years, seemingly at the expense of other UE countries, isn't helping. Adding to it the strict financial policies they endorsed doesn't help either.
Do you consider Slovakia as being the "cheap unfair competition"? Because here, the picture is quite bad too. We used to be fully self reliant in food before the collapse of communism, but the picture is completely different today. The cheapest food products are from Spain and sometimes also from France, when it comes to vegetables. And I compare only things that can and are grown also in Slovakia. A lot of meat is imported from Poland as well, and it is cheaper. It makes no sense to compare imported bananas, as they are not being grown here.
@@erikziak1249
The European Union only provokes an economic war between all European countries. I am sad to learn of the situation in Slovakia. But our politicians have other plans for us and our respective nations.
@@annemarchais868 I do not see is as an economic war. It is rather that certain regions specialize in what their local environment is best at. Slovakia is quite hilly and while it is true that technically it is possible to have agriculture and be self-supplied, the geographical situation simply makes Slovak produced food non competitive, because of added cost, that outweigh the cost of transport over thousand kilometers. This is a sad fact, but at the same time it remains true. The borders between national states in Europe are not natural, but a construction of humans. France is certainly much larger than Slovakia and nobody would even consider thinking about why this or that is being "imported" from that specific part of France and transported over 500km, when it could be made "locally" and support the local economy. Inequality of land, resources, etc. is something that will always exist. I do not blame the Spanish for being more efficient at producing food. They objectively have better conditions. Yes, there remains some local production in Slovakia. And it survives, because there is a certain demand for it. People that were previously employed in agriculture now have other jobs, mostly in industry, a few in the services sector. That is a natural process. I am not sad about our situation. Because people are being better paid in what they do now instead of agriculture and their increased buying power enables the rest of the farmers to stay in business, as more people can afford to buy locally produced food. Yet Slovakia is still not that rich, there remains a quite big part of our population that really has to buy the cheapest, they do not look at the origin of the product, but only on the price. I myself am one of the lucky ones and I always prefer to buy locally produced fresh food, if I can. And by locally I do not mean only Slovak, but also from Czechia, Hungary, Austria as I live at the border of these countries. I even reside and work in different countries. I commute daily over what once was a strongly controlled border with guards that shot anyone who tried to escape. It feels strange, remembering that time, those barbed wires and watch towers along the road, just to be able to move freely. And this freedom brings much more benefits to all of us, even though some might see it as threat to their existence. Just look at how Brexit is going. I thank the UK for showing the rest of the EU, how important it is and while it has its flaws and is not perfect, it is better than the alternative. Recent lockdowns and border closures caused me a lot of trouble at work, and many old and unpleasant memories came back. The EU is truly the best we have so far. Yes, it needs to evolve, to change, if change is due. Let us admit problems with honesty and find good ways to solve them together. Not for the benefit of one nation against other nations, but for our mutual benefit. Some people will always be worse off, but overall, the society on the scale of the continent, will be better.
I wil be honest with you , the EU is a
Stillborn project ( in my opinion ).
I never considered myself European. To me that means nothing.
The era of nation states is not over.
What is it to be European ?
I know what a Slovak , a German , a Romanian or a Finnish is .
But a European , I don't know.
@@annemarchais868 I would be interested to know which country you are from.
Regarding the idea of nation state, in my opinion it is one of the worst idea that was brought to life as it forced conqueror nation state to conduct either ethnic cleansing or oppress excessively conquered minorities.
Also I don't think the EU is stillborn "yet". It is hazardous to say the least but still brought quite a bit of good things. The EU doesn't have any glorious past or legend as most country do, and in that sense I undertsand you have a hard time calling yourself "european". A sense of unity isn't an easy thing to create or bring to life, keep that in mind.
@erikziak1249 I agree with you that it allows different areas to focus on their main area of expertise. Still I'm doubtful since drowning other markets with one's excess production doesn't warrant development of said other market in other sectors. I guess we will see how it unfold but we should be mindful of this... Yet again, not like we have a word in it.
In the case of a conflict between Poland and Czechoslovakia, you have confused some things. Zaolzie was an area inhabited mostly by Poles. I think you confused it with the Polish uprisings in Silesia against the Germans (although there were more Poles in Upper Silesia)
Hot Take: I think the EU is certainly an Economic Union that is all over Europe
And that's all it should be. Economic > Political.
@@lordgemini2376 Unfortunately Belgium and Germany (and sometimes France) use their disproportionate influence on the EU to bully the smaller member states, namely in Eastern and Southern Europe, and I feel are turning the EU into just another empire, especially as we see with them prohibiting people from utilizing their own national resources (one of the reasons for Brexit, British fishers were not allowed to fish in British waters) and with their calls to create an EU army.
Perhaps Kraut's bias blinds him to this, but as an outsider (American) this whole situation seems very suspicious to me, and if I were living in Europe I would be very worried at the direction Brussels is steering the EU.
@@lordgemini2376 No, it is in fact the political aspect that has guaranteed continued peace.
@@bfedezl2018 I disagree. Brussels did better preserving peace in Europe when it was simply a common market and didn't (overtly) interfere into the affair of state. The pretense of being a apolitical system was a pretense it was a useful useful at developing codependents and reconciliation without becoming a direct threat to the traditional nation state. It's making the mistakes the Catholic church did in the 11th century.
I definetly agree that reconciliation should come before cooperation. It's just unfortunate that "reconciliation" in Russian translates to "subjugation".
Not the former nor the latter for Russia in the coming decades unless they put a serious effort. Effort to regain their place into the human race.
@@pabloagusti5104 lmao, that's too far buddy.
@@pabloagusti5104 I hate modern Russia as much as next person, but dehumanizing a nationality is never OK and only serves to strengthen the kremlins “Russophobia” rhetoric.
@@pabloagusti5104
Yo, we are against the political establishment within russia, not the russian people. Its the same with the chinese or any other state ran by evil
The thing is Germany and Russia *did* reconcile before building economic ties. Germany apologised. Western Europe relation is fundamentally different to that of Eastern Europe for obvious historical reasons. To those in the "west" west Germany to put it bluntly what was coming to them and any cold war distrust of Soviet Russia applied just as much to Soviet. To the point conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher requested the Red Army would intervene stop fall of Berlin Wall. Seriously.
5:30 YES! The whole notion of an "interwar period" only makes sense from the perspective of Western Europe and US. In the East, World War I just kept on going, morphing into the Polist Soviet War, Russian Civil War, Greco Turkish War, etc
I love how every video goes by this logic
Nationalism bad
Hungary bad
German nationalism bad
France bad
Uk bad
EU good
also Russia bad
liberalism and free markets good
But its muhh unbiased muhh progressive don't you see?
@@balintlakatos7533 I am actually a progressive but i am also a pragmatist . Kraut is the epitome of German centrism.
His loves the eu but refuses to criticize the current system . Germany has no backbone and its legit vassal state . Also his attacks on nationalism are dumb many nationalists fought for the freedom of their nations without being racist . Bismarck for example opposed any wars after the unification of Germany and worked very hard to avoid wars he also calls Bismarck a dictator despite the fact that Imperial Germany Had elections
You are an absolute treasure dear Kraut, I wish you all the best and a Happy New Year 💙💙💙
Love how many Poland ball is in video, very like
E: also i love how you say Piłsudski, it's nice to hear it said that way and you are very close to saying it perfectly
Thank you for another great video! Keep up the good work:)
As a remain voter that is now pro Brexit I do believe the UK will one day intermingle in a larger European organisation. This EU is not it.
What made you go from remainer to pro brexit? I was and still am a remainer (for economic reasons mainly) but the past being the past, being leave or remain is irrelevant.
I'm unsure if I would be a "rejoiner" though. I would like to hear your opinions on the EU and why it's not it.
@@isaaclancaster3693 Do you mean in hindsight or immediately after the vote?
@@lordgemini2376 I voted remain as a teenager in college. I believed in multiculturalism, progress and pan national identity. I also love history.
David Cameron lead the Remain Campaign on the idea that we could change the EU from within and block it's most radical tendencies, at the time that was the European Army.
On the other hand I held sympathies with the Brexit Campaign and some of it's aims. I am a patriot, mainly of our history. I was never convinced of the net economic gain of leaving the EU, I knew it would harm the economy on a Net level. I did want closer ties with the Commonwealth and America, and honestly so did the EU like with Canada and Australia.
The main thing that made me flip was democracy. I was determined to accept and support whichever vote won. Brexit won so now I look to the benefits of Brexit.
@@Litany_of_Fury Wise decision and elaboration
@@Litany_of_Fury A yes because democracy is actually hivemindism. You don't have to change you opinions because a majority disagrees with you. You just have to accept that most other ppl disagree with you. Most of the time that doesn't even matter if it is something which can be decided between individuals. But in the case of brexit that is a bit hard.
Kraut, this is a very important video and all, and I'm a let you finish, but Ordinal has the best science videos on the whole damn internet.
man you need to upload more
your video are good
Happy New Year to the citizens of the USA, the European Union, ASEAN, China, Mercosur, the Arab League, the African Union and other countries that have not joined these wonderful unions🇺🇳
Happy New Year but if you call me a citizen of the European Union I will probably react worst that if you called Scottman British.
I'm an American living in Europe currently, so I fully acknowledge my bias against stronger federalized power... That said, the EU Commission makes my *skin crawl.*
They're the only body within the EU that can propose legislation, they can only be removed by a bloody 2/3 majority from parliament or direct action from the president, and the commissioners aren't voted on by the citizenry. Yes, they're selected and voted on by the parliament and parliamentary members *are* voted on by EU citizens, but that's one damn step too far removed in my book. How this state of affairs is tolerated by Europeans with a shrug is simply beyond me.
It is pretty much main thing which many people have against the EU and some people want to rather start their own version of EU,but majority still rather hopes that there is still chance to change how does EU work.
@@tefky7964 How can a change be made when the only people that can start the change would be removed? People at that level of power don't surrender it willingly.
@@derekburge5294 Alright,what would you do?
@@tefky7964 Other than dissolving and trying again, I would recommend a letter writing campaign. Smother Ursula von der Leyen and your parliament members with paper letters demanding a vote of no confidence of the current commission, and promise that the letters will not stop until commissioners being legislation to dissolve the commission. Emails are ignorable, but if a politician has to hire staff just to deal with physical mail, that sometimes works.
Although it was widely held that 'the Turk' was militarily superior to the West, the major Habsburg weakness was financial. As a rule, the Estates of the various lands were reluctant to vote adequate tributes to raise a powerful army.
A jealous husband is like a turk 😂
The Habsburgs had many political, institutional, social and other issues. It was a failed state already for a long time and was mainly propped up by Germany in the final decades of it's existence.
7:00 I think you mixed up the Silesian Uprising with the Polish-Czechoslovak war here. Polish-Czechoslovak had more ethnic(majority Polish areas)/area control(important railroad connection for CzS) reasons, and it was instigated by Czechoslovakia not Poland. Silesian Uprising is as you mentioned - mixed population (Silesians) and coal, lots of it.
Well, the last part about France aged beautifully.
Having finished my European Political Issues class this semester that discusses the E.U at length it's good to see this video tackle this topic. I'd recommend Frank Mols' work on the subject.
You got any book titles you'd like to share?
@@osobaum I can get some journal articles, chapters he's written and co authored. He specialises in populism
@@Bagster321 I'll look around and see what I can find. Thanks :)
@@osobaum hey one month later ik but how did you go?
As a cellist, I was pleasantly surprised when I heard Haydn Cello Concerto no. 1 in C major as the intro music in your well made video. Thank you!
Screw you. **picks up your cello and begins playing slap bass**
Why? Classical music is such an important part of European history.
As usual a great video essay; please continue your fantastic work. Cheers from Canada! 🇨🇦 🍁
Awesome video Kraut. I'm a British guy that voted for Brexit. Watching this video is quite bittersweet, because it certainly sets up a strong theory for the benefits of EU membership. I also feel like the soul of my country relates to France - the dynamic of France and Ukraine, and the undermining of the union through holdings in Africa, it seems to mirror this bygone thinking that Britain has largely lost, but France still holds onto (ie for uranium). Brits don't want to make all of these post-empire compromises for issues over the channel. It's a similar feeling to the Scandinavians who have an 'EU-lite' trade deal with the EU, such as Iceland.
However, I still stick to my guns on Brexit. I feel that the EU is a project for the continent, because like Germany's gamble on Russia and itself being tied by trade, France and Germany are the two relevant powers that need to intertwine. Right now our country is sticking to a clever route of being out of the EU, but being the first to defend its integrity by assisting Ukraine where possible. My country's future as a nation-state (well pointed out), in my opinion, lies in an Anglosphere CANZUK alliance, where one day it will be an ancient and symbolic partner, where the other nations (especially Australia) are the hardest hitters. Our relationship with Scotland (from the English perspective) is key too, because if the Arctic continues to grow as a resource hub and trade route, British influence will grow a surprising amount, and Scotland has the ability to piss off and tie up with the EU, which I believe is unnecessarily divisive, but its up to the Scots.
CANZUK can be a great initiative, but imo the US has a lot of strategic goals that collide with an independent CANZUK, and will force the nations to submit to it's grand strategy of American led World Order.
@@alexandroferreirafreitas9420 yeah, CANZUK could and I guess would integrate with the usa
@Nogent interesting points , fair enough
Always enjoy hearing continental Europeans tell us Brits what we think. Apparently you know what we think better than we do.
If there was anyone who supported Brexit because they wanted to return to the days of empire, then it was tiny. Indeed, the only people who talked about the empire during the Brexit campaign and the years afterwards were remainers who insisted that's what brexiteers wanted, and then attacked them for it. I believe that's what people call a "strawman". It's telling that Europeans used the "you're not a powerful empire anymore" line as a way to try to persuade Brits not to leave the EU, and yet we still did. It makes it clear that Brits don't care about not being a great, imperial power any more, but that Europeans do.
Also, the empire wasn't profitable for Britain, especially after Indian independence. It was a financial burden, which is ultimately why it ended; we couldn't afford to maintain it anymore. If it had been profitable, we would have worked much harder to keep hold of it, I assure you.
In his "co-operation as an international order" chapter he talks about how the European project is about post-imperial peaceful co-operation. I don't see why we can't create a similar post-imperial structure of co-operation with CANZUK. Sure, it's not as economically large and impressive as the EU, but does it really have to be?
Private companies continue to make a killing off the former colonies. I think of it as the government fronting the bill so that private companies bring the money home. The UK, the Netherlands, and especially France just realized you don’t need the colony anymore.
As an American who was always too busy to figure out what Brexit was about, may you please tell me what it is that Brexiteers were aiming for in leaving the EU? I may have vague ideas, but nothing concrete
@@Zeromus725 I'm happy to give a brief run-down for science. Disclaimer - this is what was going through my mind in 2016, but I'm not aiming to start a flame war here, so I'm not going to defend them if people want to tear them apart in the replies:
The biggest part was immigration. A lot of people say that Brexiteers just hate foreigners, but looking at the bigger picture, the Brexit vote was in 2016, in the middle of the European Refugee Crisis from Syria. The EU's response basically amounted to "Southern Europe is swamped? Germany, France, UK, Sweden, you guys pick up the slack. Wait, terrorist groups are openly gloating that they're sneaking terrorists into Europe among the refugees? How about we just ignore them?" which lead to a spike in terrorism across the continent for years to come.
Even with buying Russian petrol and gas, 6 years later, the EU always seem to make themselves look complacent and spineless and slow to act on anything until it's too late.
Another part was fishing. The population of cod in the English Channel has been suffering from overfishing for decades, and a large portion of the fishermen were from Spain, and not even the UK. Under EU law, this matter is out of the hands of the UK government, and the EU never enforced the kind of environmental protections for British waters that they have for the Mediterranean Sea. It's a good example of what brexiteers mean when talking about "taking back control" whether they're right or wrong.
I also need to bring up the misinformation campaign. Boris Johnson infamously advertised on the side of a bus that the UK gave £350 billion a year to the EU, and should instead give it to the NHS. Also, British people were getting targeted with Facebook adverts telling them to vote Brexit which could be traced back to Russia or Cambridge Analytica. It's not a valid reason to vote Brexit, but sadly I'd be lying if I said misinformation wasn't involved.
A big part was also CANZUK and the Commonwealth. The UK founded an enormous association of countries that made up a third of the world population, just to ignore them and only form trade agreements with them as part of the EU instead. A commonly brought up replacement for the EU is often the CPTPP which is a faster-growing economy than the EU.
Back in 2014, David Cameron promised "one last go" to make big changes to the EU to give the UK powers to limit the free movement agreement, to help stop terrorists and help keep immigration at manageable levels. It went about as well as you'd expect. Similarly, France are currently attempting to create something (I've heard people describe it as the EU 2.0) to make it easier for European nations to co-operate and trade without necessarily having to be in the EU and follow its laws. It's a cool idea, but it's ultimately unlikely to go anywhere. Also, the UK is attempting a "Swiss-style" relationship with the EU, which from minute 1, everyone was sceptical of because the EU hates its current relationship with Switzerland and desperately wants to leverage Switzerland to join. I'm still sceptical of the common argument that "The EU is a great idea, it just needs reform" because the EU seems inflexible and hell-bent on fighting any reform, including those that it desperately needs.
Edit: something else I forgot to bring up is that the EU wants to merge into a super-state. I've seen people argue that it's not, but not convincingly. One of the EU's core principles is "ever-deepening" co-operation and integration. Enforcing that will inevitably lead to a United States of Europe in the long term. This isn't really an unpopular option for countries like Sweden, Poland, or Ireland, but obviously it's a harder pill to swallow for the UK, which is a former superpower and has a history and still has current allies, interests, and British Overseas Territories to protect on the other side of the world. Would a centralised EU military really bother deploying to, say, the South Atlantic Ocean if the Falklands needed protecting? There is a case to be made for a federal United States of Europe, but it is not popular in the UK, and it's the clear direction the EU are currently taking.
Also blue passports FTW lol
Apologies for the essay, but this is an oversimplification if anything. We had about a year of this back-and-forth in the UK, and then another 6 and a half years afterwards.
@@belnonaodh1520 I see, there's a lot of stuff in here I'd never heard before, like with the fishing thing. It seems reasonable to me that people would want to protect the aquatic ecosystems and relevant commerce. The other points are interesting too even if more evidently debatable. Immigration I do remember being a huge topic.
For the potential replacement economic alliances, did that end up fading away to time? Hindered by the pandemic? Work in progress?
And about the Boris bus thing, is it infamous because it was false, misleading, or some other reason?
I also appreciate that you're not afraid to talk about the misinformation. Thanks for the post!
The EU is not Europe.
It's a pretty substantial chunk of Europe though.
Correct the EU is a Jw creation.
@@LarsPallesen It's like saying Canada is in America. Say that to a Canadian.
Anytime Kraut uploads is a good day for me.
kraut "we aren't trying to form a civilzation state!"
also kraut (perfectly describes a civilization state)
Maybe we aren't *intentionally* doing so. We Europeans are first trying to form a long lasting peace with eacthother first, and creating deals which benefit all the European countries. As we do that, we are becoming closer as a continent. We are forgiving eachother for past transgressions, we start to live and work in different EU countries, have relationships with people within the EU, and we start learning languages to speak with one another. All these programs are intended to just first benefit the countries in the deals, but as we benefit from those deals, we start to gain a love for our European family.
We may not be trying intentionally to form a civilization state, most certainly not in the same way China did, but through these deals, we may become closer as a ''civilization''.