Hot answers tagged

69

Despite common misconception, both Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula were ceded to the United Kingdom in perpetuity, via the Treaty of Nanking and the Convention of Peking, respectively. London was under no legal obligation to return them to China. However, most of the Crown Colony of Hong Kong actually consists of the New Territories. That was ...


68

Before answering, just to take issue with the premise of the question. Yes, France received a permanent seat on the Security Council, not to mention her own occupation zones in Germany and Austria. But France was not accorded a status anything like the "Big Three" in most other respects. From May 1943 De Gaulle was operating independently from French ...


49

First of all, as the definition you cited states, The term empire does not have a precise definition. The Aztec Empire was large by the standards of their time in their part of the world. It dominated the Valley of Mexico and was a major power in Mesoamerica generally. Land size is not really a indicator of imperial status per se, but in context, the ...


40

British policy on the continent has traditionally been to maintain the balance of power (this is also really a general European thing). This amounted to shifting alliances all over the continent. Though France and Britain are "traditional" enemies (as neighbours were wont to be in Europe), they certainly hadn't been at war for anywhere near "close to 1000 ...


38

Italy's main issue was its enmity with Austria-Hungary, Germany's main ally. That made Italy the "odd man out" in the so-called Triple Alliance with the other two. Italy had joined (reluctantly) with Germany out of a fear of France. This occurred when France and Britain concluded an alliance that made Britain responsible for the mutual defense of the ...


34

The answers to 1, 2 are very simple. The Soviet Union presented itself as a "communist paradise." That is, a country where life was better than in capitalist countries. This was the main justification for communist power and social order. People traveling abroad could immediately see that this was not the case. When this had become evident to a sufficient ...


33

The attitude in the early 19 century was somewhat different. No one considered these wars as wars "against France", I mean against the French people. These were the wars against Napoleon, and earlier the wars against the revolutionary government. So there was no notion that "France should be punished". Many French emigres were on the coalition side. It is ...


29

The Korean War and the Vietnam War are fundamentally very different conflicts. With the former, South Korea was unambiguously invaded by North Korea in an explicit war of conquest. Due to lucky political circumstances, United Nations was able to sanction a military operation to defend South Korea. The Security Council, Having determined that the ...


26

I agree with much of Semaphore's answer, which shows that actually Britain and France were not in a state of perpetual war. But I think your question really relates to "What changed?" so I'll try to answer that. Firstly, the end of the Napoleonic era. The Battle of Waterloo and following months were the end of the Napoleonic wars, and the end of the "Big" ...


25

Because China was actually pretty far from India. For most of the past millennia, China and India were not "neighbouring countries" in any meaningful sense of the word. Most Chinese empires did not actually stretch all the way to the Indian subcontinent. It seems you're considering China and India based on their modern borders, but that is misleading: ...


25

Everyone learnt from the Korean War and wished to avoid a repeat of a bloody direct Chinese-American fighting. At the onset of the escalated American involvement in 1965, Beijing made it clear where the Chinese line in the sand is: [I]f the Americans went beyond the bombing of the North and used ground forces to invade North Vietnam, China would have to ...


24

The main reason for the status of France after the WW2 was Churchill's position. Soft power and colonies are important, but nothing prevented the US & SU (both with strong anti-colonialist sentiment) from breaking up the French colonial empire. The war contribution of France was mostly in denying Germany the use of the French navy. The rest ...


21

Yes they did. The Treaty of Good Neighbourship and Friendly Cooperation qualifies as a "peace treaty"; see preamble and article 1 of the Polish text of the treaty. The treaty was signed in 1991 and went into force on 16 January 1992. It did not say specifically "we have had a war until today, but since tomorrow we are at peace", but it would hardly make ...


18

Here is the map of colonial possessions by 1945: The French possessions are in blue. As you can see, France controlled a territory comparable to the US, USSR, British and Chinese. Adding them meant adding representatives of a large portion of the world's population to the security council.


17

Gibraltar was defensible, but Hong Kong was not. In the 1990s, the distance from the UK would have made Hong Hong impossible to defend. Also, Hong Kong is primarily occupied by Chinese, unlike Gibraltar, which is occupied by UK citizens, many of whom are soldiers. Gibraltar is a fortress, and it is relatively close to the UK and hence easily suppliable. ...


15

First of all, France's goal is not to "undermine its relationship with Turkey" as you have implied. Instead, this is a product of France's policy of recognising what happened during WWI as a genocide. I believe the most important part of your question is why has France been the most assertive when it comes to recognition of the Armenian genocide. This comes ...


13

The reason is an unresolved territorial dispute over four islets, annexed by the Red Army during the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation. In Russia the dispute is known as the Kuril Islands dispute, and in Japan as the Northern Territories dispute. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe have recently restarted ...


13

Yes. Tsar Nicholas II issued a manifesto on 19 July (i.e. 1 August, New Style) which is considered Russia's declaration of war against Germany. Made in response to the German notice, it was read to a crowd from the balcony of the Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg at 3 p.m. the next day. I can't locate the original text, but here's a translated excerpt: ...


12

It is easy to explain why Italy didn't join the war: they had little to gain from it, maybe they also didn't feel prepared. Alliances are always theory and a country can refuse to be dragged into a conflict with powers that are much stronger than it. The question why Italy later still decided to join is more difficult. This website gives the following ...


12

Borders Post-war Polish borders were agreed upon in Teheran (1943) and finalized in Yalta (1945) by the "Big 3". The land was taken from Germany on the grounds of Germany having started the war, to weaken it so that it would never be able to do that again. Population The Poles did not do the ethnic cleansing of those lands singlehandedly - at first the ...


11

Funny story, that. It all starts with the Suez Canal. Shipping things between the far east and Europe the long way around Africa was certainly doable, but very very time-consuming and expensive. Once built, the canal was half owned by the French and half owned by Egypt. However, Egypt's finances were your typical third world despotic mess, so in 1875 the ...


11

Mers-el-Kebir was indeed a tragic episode in the history of Anglo-French relations. And it wasn't the only incident of its kind (though it was by far the costliest in lives). A number of engagements made up "Operation Catapult". British sailors used force to seize various French ships, some of them, like the giant submarine Surcouf already in British ports. ...


11

You're right to say that Germany's loss of territory to Poland in 1945 was "harsh" judged by the principle that borders should be delineated according to ethnic and/or historical claims. No one then or since has tried to argue that the areas in question had been anything other than ethnically German for centuries However Germany in 1945 was not any normal ...


11

Post-World War II Poland was "designed" by the British foreign office, presented by Churchill, and ratified by Roosevelt and Stalin at the Tehran Conference in 1943, as noted in another answer. After World War I, Britain had planned on the so-called Curzon line for the eastern boundary of Poland (based on the ethnic divisions) but the country crossed that ...


11

Short answer: points 4-6 were unreasonable to the point of being unacceptable, because they gave Vienna so much power over Serbia that it amounted to a forfeiture of Serbian independence. This isn't unique to the time period or Serbia. Countries generally are not happy to subjugate themselves to a hated enemy. Whether they could afford to resist is another ...


11

In german history lessons (as I remember them) the main reasons are listed like this: Great Britain had a policy called "two force standard" for its military fleet, which means GB's fleet should be not only the strongest but as strong as the second and third. Germany increased military ship production in a way that threatened to make this policy ...


11

Legalities Modern India evolved out of the transitionary Dominion of India, which was created from territories of the British Raj. It is important to note that neither Bhutan nor Nepal were princely states under British India. In Nepal's case, the Himalayan kingdom successfully negotiated a Treaty of Friendship in 1923, in which Britain recognised Nepalese ...


11

This is still a mystery. It was probably a combination of several factors, though. The government's focus shifted. Coincidentally or not, after 1433 the Oirat Mongols emerged as a serious threat. Their chieftain, To╬│an, united Mongolia under the figurehead Taisun Khan in 1434. Oirat power grew further under his son, Esen. He incorporated neighbouring ...


11

France was given a lenient peace because of its importance in the European balance of power, and the fear that punishing France too much would end up giving too much power to some other European country. This was the feeling after the removal of Napoleon, who was seen as the problem, not "France." For instance, England felt that France could be a useful ...


11

As the commenters have stated, there are several reasons "Persia" isn't one empire, but a succession of empires controlling the same area, more or less in the period. Rome under the Republic and Empire was a single continuous government. The various Persian governments tended to get knocked around in head to head competition with Mediterranean powers. ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible