Fun fact about that Greek - Bulgarian War you didn't know about; it's also called The War of the Stray Dog, because the inciting incident was a Greek soldier losing his dog and chasing the dog across the Bulgarian border to catch him.
Huh, a reaction video where the person reacting is knowledgable, respectful, seems intelligent and actually has something interesting to add or comment. My dude, I hereby brand you as a unicorn.
The region in conflict between France and Germany you're thinking about (with the beginning of the EU) is the Saarland. I believe it was more over coal than steel for this region in particular; the first form of the European project was the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) formed in 1951. The European Economic Cpmmunity (EEC) followed with the Treaty(ies) of Rome in 1957, then the modern European Union in 1993 with the Maastricht Treaty. Concerning the Saarland, the French formed a protectorate over it, and it later (late 40s-mid50s) asked to be reunited with the newly-formed West Germany.
For sure. I looked it up after and I was on the right track but the details escaped me (such is the fatal flaw of reaction videos). It's actually a really interesting area that after nearly a century (or more depending on how you look at) Germany and France finally made a long lasting peace over coal and steel. No idealism, no romantic gestures, just a mutual agreement over coal and steel.
@@VideoLife146 If Germany and France hadn't been able to put their past behind them it wouldn't have happened. Having said that, the Benelux is to this day are seen as a kind of trial lab for lots of things. The Benelux was something that already was up and running by the time of the talks about creating ECSC. The power houses of France and Germany where just that, power houses of clout and influence but having the 'little' guys of the Benelux involved in my opinion helped everyone to figure out how to make things work, throw in Italy for good measure and instead of just have two entities (and possible conflict between them) you end up with a relationship that is poly amorous and everyone understands that they need to chill out. A result of that you can see to this day is that the EU doesn't move quickly and tries to build a consensus to get if not all at least the vast majority on board for any major decision. I was taught about the ECSC in primary school. I've seen it evolve and grow. Being in the Benelux, I experienced the ease of travel even when I was a child. Not having to worry about war, or being invaded, unlike my parents is something that is invaluable. Later seeing the USSR collapse and with it taking away the possibility of nuclear war while at the same time seeing Europe become more and more a player on the world scene. Being an economic force that sets standards not just internally but also for the rest of the world. There's lots of things that the EU can improve on, are there ever, but at least they are trying and doing so without nationalistic feelings or purely because some elite group would benefit from it. *cough* China *cough* USA *cough*
On an EU Army: I hope Europe can throw of the shackles of NATO in the future, and build a European Army, so we can re-build a Cross Atlantic Partnership, not as a part of the American Sphere of Influence, but as a true partnership. Less American dependance, more European unity, and independance. I want the American administrations to stop medling in European Affairs, as they have done in the past, when they sabotaged the writing of a European Constitution. (Thanks Obama, very cool)
With the Russian invasion a lot of European armies have begun rearming and likely many will reach the 2% of GDP NATO requirement, which counterintuitively will decrease our reliance on the united States. One of the reasons that the US has such a large military presence in Europe is because other NATO members aren't pulling their weight, so America has to make up their deficit. But with members rearming now the US doesn't have to pick up the slack anymore and can decrease its military presence.
I feel like Europhiles just make up random stuff to cry about the US for their nationalist myths. When the heck did Obama sabotage the European Constitution, or the US as a whole? Hell, without the US, the EU might not have been formed to begin with -it was US interference that helped create the EU.
That requires the Europeans countries to actually fund their militaries. Which would require more money, and they wouldn’t get to keep their social programs that they like to flaunt around.
I do like the guy, but he does get kinda probagandy at times and does not approach things with history 1st. Case and point his video about Denmark is basically just political theory and what little history it has is at times just plain wrong.
"The Coal and Steel Union" The EEA came after, and the Coal and Steel Union later dissolved and become the EU, and the EEA was taken over by the EU as a way to manage relations to none-EU parties that wanted to play by the EU rules. As all EEA members must follow a subset of laws that is agreed upon in the EU, but they have no say in how they are made and expressed. Est Europa Nunc Unita!
I've been Canada, Usa and the Eu too. Im not from there but still, Eu is the best place like no question. The people, the countrys, the freedom.. its so different then this history vid. They are just better people with better places and much less hatery. It scks but yeah. Still true.
yep, its true by far. and btw im sorry but canada is a big fail cuz nobody wanna go there cuz its so expensive.. execpt elder dudes they wanna live there and thats it:D usa is poisoned hearted, make fun of canadians every time like canadian boys are all lesbians and stuff so the world think like that its crazy:D so ye still the eu for sure
4:40, I see this akin to the black plague in geopolitical evolutionary terms. An incredibly harsh and dark period that followed a hollowing out of Europe, but one that would eventually create the incentives to push even further beyond Rome. Like how the plague led to labor becoming more valued, the eventual nation states that formed would gain a higher degree of competition as opposed to being mere provinces, though it took over a millennia since the collapse for such competition to pay dividends.
no you're right, India and Pakistan have had those tensions for around 1400 years through religious tensions between Islam and Hinduism, starting from the first Muslim invasions of the Indian sub continent that resulted in around 80,000,000 Hindus killed.
That is an Exaggeration. Most muslim leaders were tolerant of Hinduism. The Tippu Sultan even allowed Hindus to build their own places of worship (one of which was destroyed by the Hindu Marathas and Tippu helped to rebuild the temple).
@@bakthihapuarachchi3447 not to my understanding. america canada and mexico dont use the same money dont have open boarders and dont have tariff free tradeor a big trading block nor do we have a shared north american law
I'm truly surprised to see a reaction from a non European who is actually versed in European history and is able to narrate extra information excluded by the video shown to him. To answer your question about the origins of the EU, it started with the European Coal and Steel Community which consisted of France-Germany-Belgium-The Netherlands-Luxemburg and Italy. Having grown up in the post war Europe I'm eternally great full for this era of peace and greater understanding of each others cultures.
I think 1920-1939 Golden age is a thing among nationalists in so called “Eastern Europe” because it was for many first time their nation states existed and afterwards Moscow came and grabbed them…
I heard that argument many times among European Nationalists. Also more of a Golden Age of Nation-Countries than "peaceful", but they acted as if those wars didn't exist or were completely unimportant and could be glossed over.
@@tilenoblak7304 Exactly. I don’t want EU to keep centralising too much more but I believe the EU must become its own independent power block so we can become independent from the US and also be safe from Chinese influence.
EU army doesn't make too much sense. But what would make sense is closer military co-operation. Especially when it comes to military industry. EU members cannot individually compete with massive countries when it comes to developing expensive military technology, but I think it would make sense to pool some money and use it to build EU military industry for some bigger more expensive projects. This would also have benefit of more standardization among EU members. Overall, kinda like we have rules and subsidies for agriculture. Now that I said it, I do actually wonder if it would be smart to have each country have some amount of professional troops that are trained specifically as part of some EU wide military structure, this way you could rapidly deploy substantial and effective cohesive force in case there's threat.
5:12 no it isn't. The division has been there before the British came. Pakistan was created because jina feared the Muslim would be discriminated against like the jews
12:30 - Not true. China and Japan were isolationist nationalist way before Ataturk. Also, he's arguing against a strawman. I hang around right-wing circles. NOBODY points to the interwar period as a pinnacle of anything. He's just building a strawman of modern day nationalism and he's using Italy to represent Fratelli di Italia, despite the fact that nobody in the party actually argues this and their actual ideology is more about resisting attacks on identity and tradition - not necessarily just ethnic ones.
I do actually remember a lot of (far) right-wing circles talking about it, though it was in early 2000's in Poland. I'm not sure if it's still true, but yes, those people had a massive "bias" towards how great Interwar Period was. When it comes to "self-limiting nationalism" it is an idea that sprouted in Europe from Turkey. Doesn't mean it was invented there, but European's took Turkish ideas as an example. Also China and Japan "self-isolationism" was only during certain times. In Turkey it is one of the pillars of Turkish statehood. While same could be said about Tokugawa Japan - let's be honest, there is a bit of a difference between Island country and one that has land borders with others. When it comes to China - again, it would depend on the period, but unlike in Japan or Turkey it was never a pillar of statehood. Of course I might be missing something and I don't pretend to know about everything, so correct me if I'm wrong. Also Europe being inspired by Turkish Nationalism and "similar" (not the same exactly, though close with Japan IIRC) ideas existing beforehand is not mutually exclusive. I doubt that Europe took it's modern nationalistic ideas from China and Japan (though influence of both, especially Japan during Interwar period is very underestimated. After WW2, it becomes.... "complex" let's just say). That being said, it's not like Kraut is perfect. You always have to take his videos with a grain of salt and remember that (apart from obvious mistakes like Karelian Uprising being shown as example of Soviet invasion) they are often super focused. They often show you one or few facets of the story and disregard (whether intentionally or unintentionally - I tend to think latter, because of the length of a video) other facets. Core of the message is usually true. And is at least important part of the story if not the whole story. There is a person here in comments that talks about how portrayal of Brexit is wrong. I partially agree with them, but the focus of the video was not Brexit. And it's not like what Kraut says are lies, it's just that he glosses over Brexit, by bringing up part of messaging only that was mostly visible in right-wing papers.
@@jannegrey593 When you talk about "some periods" of Chinese and Japanese history you are talking about centuries. Periods of time much longer than the entirety of Turkish statehood, plus they happened much earlier and it's not like European powers weren't aware of that or were oblivious to their driving ideologies.
@@newwaveinfantry8362 Of course - centuries. I didn't plan to imply that it was just couple of years or anything. Just couldn't think of a right word in English. Though I have to put slight disagree on awareness. Aware? Some of European countries were. Mostly those that thought of them (Chinese, Japanese) as "lesser". Despite not treating Ottomans and later Turkey exactly to equal standards as well, it was still much closer and there has been much stronger flow of ideas between "European Countries" and "Turkey". Proximity, trade etc. Japan got very popular by the end of 19th Century, but by that point they were leaving (or already left, depending on how you look at Hokkaido, I'm not referencing Sino-Japanese wars or anything that would be thought of as "International") the ideals of self-limiting nationalism. There certainly was some influence from Chinese Republican movement as well, but again, I think both of them are dwarfed when it comes to influence Kemalism had on Europe. Same ideas can after all grow up from many places at different times. But for European self-limiting nationalism, if we only count "external influences", Turkey would be number 1. Of course "internally" WW2 had gigantic impact (and groundwork laid by WW1, just didn't take root yet). Also Turkey would be thought as "more European" despite the fact that even today there are people who think Turkey doesn't deserve place in Europe (sort of supplanted by the idea of being in Western World, but that's another discussion altogether). As weird as it sounds Ataturk and his ideas were very popular in certain circles of European Intelligentsia, especially since 1930's, though they took root a generation later. And while it isn't the only place where European "Self-Limiting Nationalism" would be taking notes from by that point (mid 1950's), it would be first example, strongest one, most well known and at least partially understood. Reinforced probably by other examples. And again, it would be weird not to mention how big of an impact both World Wars had, especially WW2. Of course sad part is that borders were also redrawn against wills of many countries and in Soviet sphere of influence especially, people were forcibly expatriated to "their" countries. Giving them much bigger Homogenization, which also lowered the "need" for "nationalism of conquest". Sort of Ironic given what Russia is doing now, but that's even different discussion. Sorry for the abrupt ending, I do have to go. Thank You for replying.
What I don't agree with is how they talk about brexit, I do think Brexit was a mistake and I don't think we should all be lumped in with the "UK wanted brexit" when the vote was SO close, however there are mulitiple reasons people voted for brexit, such as thinking they're giving away most of our money to the EU, blaming UK political problems on the EU, Thinking that EU want to become a full country so brexit was so escape the possible loss of soviernty, no matter the ecomonic cost, being told immigration is one of the biggest issues and being told that EU is the source of the immigration issues. And also disliking the situation currently and wanting any kind of change. So just saying UK thought they could do well without the EU and be big on the world stage, feels like they want to purposely bash the UK without looking into any other reason, like oh this reason makes them look like the biggest idiots, let's go with that, when even though I don't agree with the reasons, there were many different reasons that this video ignores.
The UK media and politicians have blamed anything that was a hard sell to the British public as the UK being forced by Brussels. Everything that however was an easy sell, the same people claimed that it was because of the UK. Both were lies. Lies that were getting repeated for decade after decade after decade. In short, that you had half of the people thinking that the UK would gain sovereignty because of leaving the EU is not the fault of the EU but the fault of your politicians and media. Or thinking that leaving the EU would mean that the UK gets more control over it's borders. How's that been working out for the UK? Even to this day you have the usual suspects claiming that the UK is world leader, that they'll be spearheading this or that. That the UK leads the way. And all the usual pathetic drivel. If you heard the politicians you would think that the CPTPP was just floundering about and were just clamoring on getting the UK on board to give them leadership. By the by, isn't it strange that joining the CPTPP isn't taking away sovereignty even all though in the EU the UK had a major seat at the table instead of being on the kids table in the corner as they'll have in the CPTPP?
Well - this isn't a video on Brexit. As you can see it doesn't go too deep on specifics of it's examples. And Brexit campaign example was good in showing how UK was not a nation state before it joined EU. Therefore argument in campaign of taking back control was flawed one (apart from the fact that when UK joined it had deep economical problems, being called "Sick Man of Europe" back then), because UK would be "getting back" to completely different circumstances than it was prior to entering EU. It wasn't the same type of country, so it would have completely different possibilities. Among other things that's why Churchill said that one of the priorities post-WW2 was European Integration. It was his second priority - if the first one, managing to somehow hold on to it's empire, would fail. And video on Brexit would be it's own video. Here it had one facet shown as one example. So of course it doesn't catch all the subtleties of Brexit nor does it talk about all the issues of Brexit. Because that wasn't the point of the video.
@@jannegrey593 I'm saying they should have mentioned more than just than reason, which purposely makes us look like complete arrogant idiots, or at least said for "multiple reasons" instead, its rather simple to do to add a couple of extra sentences in.
@@pipercharms7374 Agreed, it looks unfair. That being said, Kraut doesn't do this only to UK. He focuses on the point he is making and example is valid only for in context of this point. Otherwise it is quite broad and might seem as such a generalization that it feels offensive. It is something he should work on, but to me a person who followed Brexit closely it was obvious that this wasn't "a point on Brexit" or "a point on UK", but a point on "not understanding that glorified country you want to go back to doesn't exist anymore and arguably was in much worse state then people 'remember' it, since it became romanticized". It never felt like an attack on British people (I know difference between UK and GB, but I don't know the word for it's citizens - apologies). It merely felt as an example of how that campaign "skewed" the reality (one of many ways it did so, but others were not relevant to the point he was making). And yes, Kraut made such generalizations about my own country, but it never felt like an attack. It felt like it perhaps needed expanding on it (sort of like you would like it) or it's own video. The difference here is that in my case, expanding it would take 20 seconds at most in the video (which would have people complain that it wasn't viewed from "their" side). In case of Brexit (and to do it justice and not have people say that he didn't expand on it properly - I'm not saying you would criticize him for it, but some people would) - it would require it's own, long video, since it is a COMPLEX TOPIC (I used caps, not for shouting but to show how big and important and heavy topic it is). Yes, it could have been done better - no disagreement there. But a) you'd always have people who'd say he didn't include something b) it does serve well as an example to the point he was making - no one should try to use it as "summary on Brexit".
@@jannegrey593 I disagree unfortunately, to me it felt like it was purposely bashing the UK, which could have been solved by one or two sentences more. I'm fine with the UK being bashed when I agree with the reason and think its fair, but this I do not think was fair and disagree with the reasoning he put forward, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree?
Blue keys my friend, they can take it lol. The real answer is that my mic is next to my keyboard, so it sounds a lot louder than it really is Edit: I've also had the same keyboard since 2015 now :)
13:00 yea he doesnt really know a lot about the balkans lol even today like 50% of Montenegrins say they are serbs or at least have serbian heritage/roots
@mcsroom8930 Sorry, but that's a ridiculous comment. Montenegrins are an independent people and nation just like Austria. The Serbs in Montenegro are just as ridiculous as the Serbs in Bosnia/Herzegovina and Kosovo. Serbs are just as st*pid nationalists and imperialists as Russians, Hungarians and now Turks. And just as well this over-praised nationalism and thus imperialism are a disgrace for today's Europe, which is built on cooperation and friendship and economic development. Greetings from Austria!
@@Adrian-yj8rx just look at wiki dude en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegro 63% are ether serbs or Montenegrins 28% are serbs so thats almost half of all of them, and now here is my spicy opinion probably another 10-20% of those montenegrins would say yes to being serbian or having serbian roots
@@mcsroom8930 "Greater Serbian" Fake-News Propaganda - same as the "Greater German" Fake-News Propaganda here in Central Europe! Greetings from a Austrian!
Fun fact about that Greek - Bulgarian War you didn't know about; it's also called The War of the Stray Dog, because the inciting incident was a Greek soldier losing his dog and chasing the dog across the Bulgarian border to catch him.
It was a stupid incident indeed...not as much as the Venetian bucket war or whatever it was known as but stupid nevertheless.
@@EskiZagraIT was actually Ravena and Bologna, not Venice.
Huh, a reaction video where the person reacting is knowledgable, respectful, seems intelligent and actually has something interesting to add or comment. My dude, I hereby brand you as a unicorn.
The region in conflict between France and Germany you're thinking about (with the beginning of the EU) is the Saarland. I believe it was more over coal than steel for this region in particular; the first form of the European project was the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) formed in 1951. The European Economic Cpmmunity (EEC) followed with the Treaty(ies) of Rome in 1957, then the modern European Union in 1993 with the Maastricht Treaty.
Concerning the Saarland, the French formed a protectorate over it, and it later (late 40s-mid50s) asked to be reunited with the newly-formed West Germany.
For sure. I looked it up after and I was on the right track but the details escaped me (such is the fatal flaw of reaction videos). It's actually a really interesting area that after nearly a century (or more depending on how you look at) Germany and France finally made a long lasting peace over coal and steel. No idealism, no romantic gestures, just a mutual agreement over coal and steel.
@@VideoLife146 If Germany and France hadn't been able to put their past behind them it wouldn't have happened. Having said that, the Benelux is to this day are seen as a kind of trial lab for lots of things. The Benelux was something that already was up and running by the time of the talks about creating ECSC.
The power houses of France and Germany where just that, power houses of clout and influence but having the 'little' guys of the Benelux involved in my opinion helped everyone to figure out how to make things work, throw in Italy for good measure and instead of just have two entities (and possible conflict between them) you end up with a relationship that is poly amorous and everyone understands that they need to chill out.
A result of that you can see to this day is that the EU doesn't move quickly and tries to build a consensus to get if not all at least the vast majority on board for any major decision.
I was taught about the ECSC in primary school. I've seen it evolve and grow. Being in the Benelux, I experienced the ease of travel even when I was a child. Not having to worry about war, or being invaded, unlike my parents is something that is invaluable. Later seeing the USSR collapse and with it taking away the possibility of nuclear war while at the same time seeing Europe become more and more a player on the world scene. Being an economic force that sets standards not just internally but also for the rest of the world.
There's lots of things that the EU can improve on, are there ever, but at least they are trying and doing so without nationalistic feelings or purely because some elite group would benefit from it.
*cough* China *cough* USA *cough*
On an EU Army:
I hope Europe can throw of the shackles of NATO in the future, and build a European Army, so we can re-build a Cross Atlantic Partnership, not as a part of the American Sphere of Influence, but as a true partnership.
Less American dependance, more European unity, and independance.
I want the American administrations to stop medling in European Affairs, as they have done in the past, when they sabotaged the writing of a European Constitution. (Thanks Obama, very cool)
With the Russian invasion a lot of European armies have begun rearming and likely many will reach the 2% of GDP NATO requirement, which counterintuitively will decrease our reliance on the united States.
One of the reasons that the US has such a large military presence in Europe is because other NATO members aren't pulling their weight, so America has to make up their deficit. But with members rearming now the US doesn't have to pick up the slack anymore and can decrease its military presence.
I feel like Europhiles just make up random stuff to cry about the US for their nationalist myths. When the heck did Obama sabotage the European Constitution, or the US as a whole? Hell, without the US, the EU might not have been formed to begin with -it was US interference that helped create the EU.
That requires the Europeans countries to actually fund their militaries. Which would require more money, and they wouldn’t get to keep their social programs that they like to flaunt around.
Interesting little detail, though the League of Nations ultimately failed, without it even more little wars would've occured
My man Kraut, my favorite History RUclipsr
Same in terms of political history he’s my favourite.
I do like the guy, but he does get kinda probagandy at times and does not approach things with history 1st.
Case and point his video about Denmark is basically just political theory and what little history it has is at times just plain wrong.
"The Coal and Steel Union"
The EEA came after, and the Coal and Steel Union later dissolved and become the EU, and the EEA was taken over by the EU as a way to manage relations to none-EU parties that wanted to play by the EU rules.
As all EEA members must follow a subset of laws that is agreed upon in the EU, but they have no say in how they are made and expressed.
Est Europa Nunc Unita!
I've been Canada, Usa and the Eu too. Im not from there but still, Eu is the best place like no question. The people, the countrys, the freedom.. its so different then this history vid. They are just better people with better places and much less hatery. It scks but yeah. Still true.
yep, its true by far. and btw im sorry but canada is a big fail cuz nobody wanna go there cuz its so expensive.. execpt elder dudes they wanna live there and thats it:D usa is poisoned hearted, make fun of canadians every time like canadian boys are all lesbians and stuff so the world think like that its crazy:D so ye still the eu for sure
"much less hatery" lmao
15:05 I think it's called sarland
4:40, I see this akin to the black plague in geopolitical evolutionary terms. An incredibly harsh and dark period that followed a hollowing out of Europe, but one that would eventually create the incentives to push even further beyond Rome. Like how the plague led to labor becoming more valued, the eventual nation states that formed would gain a higher degree of competition as opposed to being mere provinces, though it took over a millennia since the collapse for such competition to pay dividends.
no you're right, India and Pakistan have had those tensions for around 1400 years through religious tensions between Islam and Hinduism, starting from the first Muslim invasions of the Indian sub continent that resulted in around 80,000,000 Hindus killed.
That is an Exaggeration. Most muslim leaders were tolerant of Hinduism. The Tippu Sultan even allowed Hindus to build their own places of worship (one of which was destroyed by the Hindu Marathas and Tippu helped to rebuild the temple).
Can you react to his new video "A critique of realism" I found it very interesting.
it would be really cool if we had a north American/Caribbean union like the eu
Isn't there a union of all the countries in Americas?
@@bakthihapuarachchi3447 not to my understanding. america canada and mexico dont use the same money dont have open boarders and dont have tariff free tradeor a big trading block nor do we have a shared north american law
There are the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) and the Association of Caribbean States (ACS)
Which are somewhat similar.
I'm truly surprised to see a reaction from a non European who is actually versed in European history and is able to narrate extra information excluded by the video shown to him. To answer your question about the origins of the EU, it started with the European Coal and Steel Community which consisted of France-Germany-Belgium-The Netherlands-Luxemburg and Italy. Having grown up in the post war Europe I'm eternally great full for this era of peace and greater understanding of each others cultures.
I think 1920-1939 Golden age is a thing among nationalists in so called “Eastern Europe” because it was for many first time their nation states existed and afterwards Moscow came and grabbed them…
Ive never heard anyone say that 1919-1933 was a "peaceful age"
I heard that argument many times among European Nationalists. Also more of a Golden Age of Nation-Countries than "peaceful", but they acted as if those wars didn't exist or were completely unimportant and could be glossed over.
React to Living Ironically in Europe's Why the Balkans Hate Each Other.
An EU army is about as popular a concept as EU federalism is in Europe today. Meaning it is pretty much dead in the water.
Sadly. Not about federalism but about the fact that an EU army is not even close to happening.
Thats sad…. We will for ever be nato puppets
@@tilenoblak7304 Exactly. I don’t want EU to keep centralising too much more but I believe the EU must become its own independent power block so we can become independent from the US and also be safe from Chinese influence.
EU army doesn't make too much sense. But what would make sense is closer military co-operation. Especially when it comes to military industry. EU members cannot individually compete with massive countries when it comes to developing expensive military technology, but I think it would make sense to pool some money and use it to build EU military industry for some bigger more expensive projects. This would also have benefit of more standardization among EU members. Overall, kinda like we have rules and subsidies for agriculture.
Now that I said it, I do actually wonder if it would be smart to have each country have some amount of professional troops that are trained specifically as part of some EU wide military structure, this way you could rapidly deploy substantial and effective cohesive force in case there's threat.
the problem is the west don't trust the east and the aste even trust less the west
5:12 no it isn't. The division has been there before the British came. Pakistan was created because jina feared the Muslim would be discriminated against like the jews
12:30 - Not true. China and Japan were isolationist nationalist way before Ataturk. Also, he's arguing against a strawman. I hang around right-wing circles. NOBODY points to the interwar period as a pinnacle of anything. He's just building a strawman of modern day nationalism and he's using Italy to represent Fratelli di Italia, despite the fact that nobody in the party actually argues this and their actual ideology is more about resisting attacks on identity and tradition - not necessarily just ethnic ones.
I do actually remember a lot of (far) right-wing circles talking about it, though it was in early 2000's in Poland. I'm not sure if it's still true, but yes, those people had a massive "bias" towards how great Interwar Period was.
When it comes to "self-limiting nationalism" it is an idea that sprouted in Europe from Turkey. Doesn't mean it was invented there, but European's took Turkish ideas as an example. Also China and Japan "self-isolationism" was only during certain times. In Turkey it is one of the pillars of Turkish statehood. While same could be said about Tokugawa Japan - let's be honest, there is a bit of a difference between Island country and one that has land borders with others. When it comes to China - again, it would depend on the period, but unlike in Japan or Turkey it was never a pillar of statehood. Of course I might be missing something and I don't pretend to know about everything, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Also Europe being inspired by Turkish Nationalism and "similar" (not the same exactly, though close with Japan IIRC) ideas existing beforehand is not mutually exclusive. I doubt that Europe took it's modern nationalistic ideas from China and Japan (though influence of both, especially Japan during Interwar period is very underestimated. After WW2, it becomes.... "complex" let's just say).
That being said, it's not like Kraut is perfect. You always have to take his videos with a grain of salt and remember that (apart from obvious mistakes like Karelian Uprising being shown as example of Soviet invasion) they are often super focused. They often show you one or few facets of the story and disregard (whether intentionally or unintentionally - I tend to think latter, because of the length of a video) other facets. Core of the message is usually true. And is at least important part of the story if not the whole story.
There is a person here in comments that talks about how portrayal of Brexit is wrong. I partially agree with them, but the focus of the video was not Brexit. And it's not like what Kraut says are lies, it's just that he glosses over Brexit, by bringing up part of messaging only that was mostly visible in right-wing papers.
@@jannegrey593 When you talk about "some periods" of Chinese and Japanese history you are talking about centuries. Periods of time much longer than the entirety of Turkish statehood, plus they happened much earlier and it's not like European powers weren't aware of that or were oblivious to their driving ideologies.
@@newwaveinfantry8362 Of course - centuries. I didn't plan to imply that it was just couple of years or anything. Just couldn't think of a right word in English.
Though I have to put slight disagree on awareness. Aware? Some of European countries were. Mostly those that thought of them (Chinese, Japanese) as "lesser". Despite not treating Ottomans and later Turkey exactly to equal standards as well, it was still much closer and there has been much stronger flow of ideas between "European Countries" and "Turkey". Proximity, trade etc. Japan got very popular by the end of 19th Century, but by that point they were leaving (or already left, depending on how you look at Hokkaido, I'm not referencing Sino-Japanese wars or anything that would be thought of as "International") the ideals of self-limiting nationalism. There certainly was some influence from Chinese Republican movement as well, but again, I think both of them are dwarfed when it comes to influence Kemalism had on Europe. Same ideas can after all grow up from many places at different times. But for European self-limiting nationalism, if we only count "external influences", Turkey would be number 1. Of course "internally" WW2 had gigantic impact (and groundwork laid by WW1, just didn't take root yet). Also Turkey would be thought as "more European" despite the fact that even today there are people who think Turkey doesn't deserve place in Europe (sort of supplanted by the idea of being in Western World, but that's another discussion altogether). As weird as it sounds Ataturk and his ideas were very popular in certain circles of European Intelligentsia, especially since 1930's, though they took root a generation later. And while it isn't the only place where European "Self-Limiting Nationalism" would be taking notes from by that point (mid 1950's), it would be first example, strongest one, most well known and at least partially understood. Reinforced probably by other examples. And again, it would be weird not to mention how big of an impact both World Wars had, especially WW2. Of course sad part is that borders were also redrawn against wills of many countries and in Soviet sphere of influence especially, people were forcibly expatriated to "their" countries. Giving them much bigger Homogenization, which also lowered the "need" for "nationalism of conquest". Sort of Ironic given what Russia is doing now, but that's even different discussion.
Sorry for the abrupt ending, I do have to go. Thank You for replying.
Pls react to 1848 europe's year of revolutions, by epic history.
Definitely coming soon, no worries.
EDIT: Here you go, ruclips.net/video/ykza58f9NKo/видео.html
What I don't agree with is how they talk about brexit, I do think Brexit was a mistake and I don't think we should all be lumped in with the "UK wanted brexit" when the vote was SO close, however there are mulitiple reasons people voted for brexit, such as thinking they're giving away most of our money to the EU, blaming UK political problems on the EU, Thinking that EU want to become a full country so brexit was so escape the possible loss of soviernty, no matter the ecomonic cost, being told immigration is one of the biggest issues and being told that EU is the source of the immigration issues. And also disliking the situation currently and wanting any kind of change.
So just saying UK thought they could do well without the EU and be big on the world stage, feels like they want to purposely bash the UK without looking into any other reason, like oh this reason makes them look like the biggest idiots, let's go with that, when even though I don't agree with the reasons, there were many different reasons that this video ignores.
The UK media and politicians have blamed anything that was a hard sell to the British public as the UK being forced by Brussels. Everything that however was an easy sell, the same people claimed that it was because of the UK.
Both were lies. Lies that were getting repeated for decade after decade after decade.
In short, that you had half of the people thinking that the UK would gain sovereignty because of leaving the EU is not the fault of the EU but the fault of your politicians and media. Or thinking that leaving the EU would mean that the UK gets more control over it's borders. How's that been working out for the UK?
Even to this day you have the usual suspects claiming that the UK is world leader, that they'll be spearheading this or that. That the UK leads the way. And all the usual pathetic drivel. If you heard the politicians you would think that the CPTPP was just floundering about and were just clamoring on getting the UK on board to give them leadership.
By the by, isn't it strange that joining the CPTPP isn't taking away sovereignty even all though in the EU the UK had a major seat at the table instead of being on the kids table in the corner as they'll have in the CPTPP?
Well - this isn't a video on Brexit. As you can see it doesn't go too deep on specifics of it's examples. And Brexit campaign example was good in showing how UK was not a nation state before it joined EU. Therefore argument in campaign of taking back control was flawed one (apart from the fact that when UK joined it had deep economical problems, being called "Sick Man of Europe" back then), because UK would be "getting back" to completely different circumstances than it was prior to entering EU. It wasn't the same type of country, so it would have completely different possibilities. Among other things that's why Churchill said that one of the priorities post-WW2 was European Integration. It was his second priority - if the first one, managing to somehow hold on to it's empire, would fail.
And video on Brexit would be it's own video. Here it had one facet shown as one example. So of course it doesn't catch all the subtleties of Brexit nor does it talk about all the issues of Brexit. Because that wasn't the point of the video.
@@jannegrey593 I'm saying they should have mentioned more than just than reason, which purposely makes us look like complete arrogant idiots, or at least said for "multiple reasons" instead, its rather simple to do to add a couple of extra sentences in.
@@pipercharms7374 Agreed, it looks unfair. That being said, Kraut doesn't do this only to UK. He focuses on the point he is making and example is valid only for in context of this point. Otherwise it is quite broad and might seem as such a generalization that it feels offensive. It is something he should work on, but to me a person who followed Brexit closely it was obvious that this wasn't "a point on Brexit" or "a point on UK", but a point on "not understanding that glorified country you want to go back to doesn't exist anymore and arguably was in much worse state then people 'remember' it, since it became romanticized". It never felt like an attack on British people (I know difference between UK and GB, but I don't know the word for it's citizens - apologies). It merely felt as an example of how that campaign "skewed" the reality (one of many ways it did so, but others were not relevant to the point he was making).
And yes, Kraut made such generalizations about my own country, but it never felt like an attack. It felt like it perhaps needed expanding on it (sort of like you would like it) or it's own video. The difference here is that in my case, expanding it would take 20 seconds at most in the video (which would have people complain that it wasn't viewed from "their" side). In case of Brexit (and to do it justice and not have people say that he didn't expand on it properly - I'm not saying you would criticize him for it, but some people would) - it would require it's own, long video, since it is a COMPLEX TOPIC (I used caps, not for shouting but to show how big and important and heavy topic it is).
Yes, it could have been done better - no disagreement there. But
a) you'd always have people who'd say he didn't include something
b) it does serve well as an example to the point he was making - no one should try to use it as "summary on Brexit".
@@jannegrey593 I disagree unfortunately, to me it felt like it was purposely bashing the UK, which could have been solved by one or two sentences more. I'm fine with the UK being bashed when I agree with the reason and think its fair, but this I do not think was fair and disagree with the reasoning he put forward, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree?
the region in germany ur thinking about is Saarbrucken
Saarbrücken is a city, NOT a region.
It's 28 again
How many keyboards do you use per year? You slam that poor thing over and over again with such a force that it seems you want to put a nail into wood.
Blue keys my friend, they can take it lol. The real answer is that my mic is next to my keyboard, so it sounds a lot louder than it really is
Edit: I've also had the same keyboard since 2015 now :)
@@VideoLife146 Amazing.... eight long years of brutal torture. Poor thing.
Ok ok,you got your sub.
13:00 yea he doesnt really know a lot about the balkans lol
even today like 50% of Montenegrins say they are serbs or at least have serbian heritage/roots
@mcsroom8930
Sorry, but that's a ridiculous comment. Montenegrins are an independent people and nation just like Austria. The Serbs in Montenegro are just as ridiculous as the Serbs in Bosnia/Herzegovina and Kosovo. Serbs are just as st*pid nationalists and imperialists as Russians, Hungarians and now Turks. And just as well this over-praised nationalism and thus imperialism are a disgrace for today's Europe, which is built on cooperation and friendship and economic development. Greetings from Austria!
@@Adrian-yj8rx
just look at wiki dude
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegro
63% are ether serbs or Montenegrins
28% are serbs so thats almost half of all of them, and now here is my spicy opinion probably another 10-20% of those montenegrins would say yes to being serbian or having serbian roots
@@mcsroom8930 "Greater Serbian" Fake-News Propaganda - same as the "Greater German" Fake-News Propaganda here in Central Europe!
Greetings from a Austrian!
@@Adrian-yj8rx LOL are you really claiming that Wikipedia is making propaganda for fucking serbia