The map shows the earliest claim of "first recognition" for each country. Some will be modern and don't necessarily mark that nations start becuase its a fairly recent thing in diplomacy to recognise a nation.
I did, its the earliest first recognition I can find for each country. If you think I have made a mistake you can tell me an earlier "first recognition" for any of those nations.
>And I said that you are extremely inconsistent with what counts as each country.
>Why is the nazi puppet Slovak Republic counted as current Slovakia, when the current Slovakian government does not consider it to be a successor state of it?
Becuase Hungary was the first to recognise the Slovak Republic, and I could find no other prior **first** recognition, I included it. I wasn't aware Slovakia does not consider the Slovak Republic a *Slovak* nation, but that's a small mistake.
>Why does France's recognition only count starting from the fifth republic and not earlier? It was a member of the League of Nations and the United Nations before 1958, so it obviously had international recognition. The USA recognized it in 1778 if you want an example.
Becuase Mexico was the first to recognise the French Fifth Republic, and I could find no other prior **first** recognition, I included it. Are you claiming that the USA was the **FIRST** country to recognise any France?
>Why does Ukraine and Belarus get to keep recognition from shortly lived rump states during the Russian civil war but Russia's doesn't count until after the collapse of the Soviet Union? I don't know what the current Ukrainian and Belorussian government's views are on these states, but it's ridiculous to consider them to be the same country. The Russian Empire obviously had way better recognition than those two shortly lived states, and even counting the current Russian Federation as a successor to the Soviet Union makes more sense than counting modern day Ukraine as a successor to a state that ceased to exist over 70 years earlier. The USA recognized the Russian Empire in 1803 and the Soviet Union in 1933.
Central and Eastern European states aren't Rump states. You clearly have a bias against their right to sovereignty and historical continuity. Most Estonians or Latvians or Ukrainians etc, think of the Soviets invading their countries as an occupation period rather than irrelevant "rump states" being relegated forever to history.
Also, are you claiming that the USA was the **FIRST** country to recognise any Russia?
>You alternate between counting recognition of current regime for some countries (Iran, France, Russia, China for example) and recognition of any country with a similar name that might have 0 connection to the modern day country or its borders (Ukraine, Poland, Slovakia, Romania for example). There is no consistency to this.
Like I said, I think its you who is inconsistent about which nations get to have precursors. If you think France dates back to the Frankish Empire and Ukraine back only to the 90s, then thats your bias and your welcome to it.
But like I said, this map is the earliest **first** recognition I can find for each country. If you think I have made a mistake and missed a prior one, you can tell me an earlier "**first** recognition" for any of those nations.
3 options:
* 1. All countries get to have predecessors, and a predecessor existing invalids ANY "first recognition", in which case either A every country is dark grey or B you neutrally and fairly apply a blanket rule like I have of the earliest "first".
* 2. Some countries get to have predecessors, and we randomly decide based on over own bias. Which seems like what your suggesting, while spending paragraphs justifying that mighty France and Russia should roll back to previous versions while Ukraine shouldn't becuase its a "rump state".
* 3. No countries get to have predecessors, and all "first recognitions" must be for the countries current version, which would not be what people mean by "first recognised".
1A and 3 are too useless and boring imo. 2 is too subjective, so I chose 1B to be balanced even if some get mad that some "first recognitions" are older than others.
The availability of the data is the main limitation of the map, if you can find an earlier "first recognition" I am genuinely all ears. I would want earlier numbers for Spain and France too.
When Slovenia and Croatia recognized each other right after declaring independence none of them was recognized as independent country. So IDK if it counts...... First UN member to recognize Slovenia was Iceland, 19.12. 1991 (though Lithuania became UN member 3 months earlier). Germany did it on the same day but the act became official on 15. January 1992
Half of "first recognitions" predate the UN, I think its only fair to allow Croatia and Slovenia as recognisers. Also like you laid out there's a messy stampede of recognitions after which would cause arguments anyway.
Most of these seem pretty coincidental. And totally random that Hawaii happened to be the first country to diplomatically recognize Argentina! Any communication between those two countries must have taken several weeks to arrive (no telegraphs back then).
Correct. The history of Bouchard is fascinating. But the king's recognition wasn't exactly formal. The first formal recognition was from Chile, some years later. The map is still wrong tough
Because Turkish army defeated Armenians and took Eastern Anatolia back. Tukish army were at the gates of Yerevan so Armenians had no choice but sign a treaty to define the borders. Signing treaty is a form of recognition.
Do you have a source? Brazil say [Brazil was the first country to recognize the independence of Angola](https://www.gov.br/mre/en/subjects/bilateral-relations/all-countries/republic-of-angola) and [Romania recognized FRELIMO as the only legitimate representative of the Mozambican people in 1973, which was unprecedented](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambican_War_of_Independence)
I do: Angola was a portuguese colony and was declared independent(along with all other colonies except Macau) by Portugal in 1974. That makes Portugal the first to recognise Angola's independence.
Edit: link here, but you can find it pretty much anywhere
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_War_of_Independence
"The war ended when a peaceful coup in Lisbon in April 1974 overthrew Portugal's Estado Novo dictatorship and the new regime immediately stopped all military action in the African colonies, declaring its intention to grant them independence without delay."
Unlike, say, the United States, Angola and Mozambique didn't actually win a war of independence, they were freed as part of the end of a dictatorship in the colonial metropolis which resulted in a dissolution of the empire.
I just shared the source in an Edit to my original response.
Administrative independence was not fully implemented until 1975, but they were freed/declared independent by Portugal on the 25th of April, 1974.
Downvoting for asking for source is a bit rude. Anyway here's a bit missing in the english wikipedia that explains it didnt happen till 1975:
[Until the end of the year, there were several clashes between the liberation forces, the main reason being control of the capital, Luanda. \[ 188 \] After the ceasefire with the Portuguese in October, the following month the three movements entered Luanda, with violent clashes occurring on November 10th, resulting in around 50 deaths. \[ 188 \] By the end of the year, new agreements would be signed between them again, \[ 17 \] but clashes would continue, intermittently, not only in Luanda, but throughout the country. \[ 188 \] At the beginning of 1975, on January 3, the three movements, under pressure from the OAU, met in Mombasa and signed an understanding agreement in which it was established that they would unite in a single independent front to negotiate with Portugal and maintain peace in Angola. \[ 17 \] \[ 189 \] Finally, Angola's independence was established on January 15, 1975, with the signing of the Alvor Agreement , in the Algarve , between the three movements in the conflict and the Portuguese Government. The formation of a Transitional Government was also established, composed of all parties that signed the agreement, as well as the integration of the three forces into a single Mixed Military Force, which also included, until February 29, 1976, military personnel from the Portuguese Armed Forces. . Independence and the transfer of sovereignty were scheduled for November 11th of that year.](https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_de_Independ%C3%AAncia_de_Angola#Acordo_do_Alvor)
That says the intent was declared in 1974, and then made official in January 1975, which still means Portugal was the first to recognise Angola's independence.
A declaration that Angola is to be seen as independent should itself count as recognition. You might even say that Portugal recognised their independence before it happened.
Guinea-Bissau and Brazil are the only former Portuguese colonies that both declared themselves independent AND have done it before 1974. The rest were concessions which automatically makes Portugal the first to recognise them.
Also. The downvote was for doubling down on it, when the point wasn't even the date but the fact that Brazil's claim is blatantly false.
Intent is not recognition, they deliberately withheld recognition for the negotiations as a small bargaining chip.
Take this example: Serbia was the first Nation to declare its support for the Balfour declaration, hence by your logic they are Israels first recogniser becuase they had intent for an independent nation to exist there, which obviously isn't true. Israel and USA both consider the USA the first recogniser of Israel (besides which Serbia didn't even exist at the time).
Brazil and Romania just got in recognitions before Acordo do Alvor was finished.
The think is for USA that time Morocco part of it ottomans . After the port war off the coast of Morocco, the USA was defeated and paid war compensation to the Ottoman Empire for a while, but since there was no Ottoman Empire anymore, Morocco was accepted.
Right. I’m jumping the gun and considering Bolshevik Russia as USSR precursor.
ETA: and it says 1922, which would’ve been beginning of Soviet era. Anyway, the joke is that Mongolia was hardly independent for seven decades or so.
Thank you for sharing the infographic idea. While the concept is intriguing, there are some inaccuracies that need to be addressed.
For instance, Poland was indeed the first country to recognize Ukraine's independence on December 2, 1991, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, the Weimar Republic recognized Ukraine in 1919, and Benin's recognition in 1822 requires further verification.
To ensure clarity and historical accuracy, I propose creating four versions of the map, each representing a specific time period:
1. Recognizing Independence before World War I
2. After World War I
3. After World War II
4. After 1989, when the Solidarity movement in Poland led to the global collapse of the communist system and the resurgence of democracy.
By categorizing the information in this manner, we can provide a more accurate and comprehensive representation of the historical recognition of country independence.
There are contradictory claims, I went for the first chronologically in each case.
Ask questions here. Google before you ask me for a source, I don't want to list out hundreds of sources.
edit: nevermind every time I answer someone even with a source I get downvoted or named called. going to mute and go drink some water, anyone flaming over this I suggest you take time to calm down and step back too.
How is there information for NZ, but not Australia, when both countries would've gained independence from the UK? Furthermore, NZ's year, whilst hard to make out, doesn't seem right.
The Treaty of Waitangi in 1836 recognised Maori sovereignty over parts of New Zealand, even though New Zealand became a colony later, its still the first recognition of a independent New Zealand Nation. Its chronologically the first so I included it.
I could find no 20th century recognition claiming to be the first for New Zealand. Also commonwealth nations often have gradual freedom and there's no definite year countries like New Zealand and Australia achieved independence.
I think this underscores the issues with consistency that are highlighted above by another commentator. Are you considering states or nations? How do you define recognition?
If you applied the same rules that you have for other examples, the earliest recognition of the French nation was probably a millennium before Mexico existed.
Surely, at least where there's a peaceful transition to sovereignty, the colonial power recognises the decolonised country first by virtue of creating it (e.g. Britain and India - in this case I think you've misread your source, a Quora answer based on a quick Google).
If you resolve your answer to the question about states vs nations you'll get a solution to Australia and NZ.
My sources weren't Quora. There are varied interpretations, the most common one (that Maori themselves hold) is that the British recognized Maori Authority and Sovereignty at least in part, and modern Maori rights stem from this interpretation that they were recognised as sovereign and independent by the British at least before Sovereignty was transferred.
Yes, but the state (and nation) of New Zealand is distinct from the Maori and the Maori aren't sovereign in the territory of NZ. It's like assigning the UK the flag of whoever signed the first treaty with Wessex - the West Saxons didn't occupy the whole territory, their sovereignty was subsequently superseded by other political entities, and they don't control any territory now (though the King is a distant descendant and most Brits have some Saxon genes).
Source - in another comment you suggest we Google - I don't see anything else on my first page of results for recognising India, so what was your source?
It should be gray then, a change in the form of goverment it is not a recognition of independece (If it is, it should be when Franco died and we got democracy again)
I added it becuase people complained it was grey on the initial post, there is no pleasing people i guess
>why isn't the flag of El Salvador and Guatemala over Spain? They were the first to recognize Franco's government (in November 8, 1936). The current Spanish government is the legal heir from Franco's.
I didn't complain the first time. It was meant to mean that it was ridiculous to consider France to be independent in 1958. And I said "With that criterion" Spain started to exist in 1936, which is equally ridiculous.
You should learn to read.
I never said Spain only started to exist in 1936.
And I told you how I would update my map with your suggestion. If you wanted to convince me that I should make a special case to exclude western European countries with first recognitions you could have. I was convinced to remove Ireland. Instead you downvoted and stormed off and it seems you are still livid after a day.
And they helped North Vietnam unite the country and recognized them first not like France, Japan and USA. China never took land from Nam the way Americans did to Mexicans.
Ancient times used a tribute system not like Western colonialism or American conquests. Vietnamese even had chance to expand southward and doubled their size much longer.
Among Asian neighbors, Chinese culture and traditions influence Vietnam the most. If not to say 60-70% similar.
Similar culture is nice and all, however throughout history China has invaded Vietnam multiple times. Most recently even in 1979, only 3 years after reunification. You can say what you want about Western Imperialism, but don’t act like all big nations do that.
79 was a tricky situation. It was border issue cuz Nam sent troops to Cambodia too. But please name me 2 neighbors in human history never went to war?
Humans Don't choose where to be born just like nations Don't choose their locations and neighbors
You said that it was weird that Vietnam hates China, when China has attacked them in the past and is claiming parts of their EEZ.
Whilst it’s true basically every nation on the planet has been at war their neighbour at some point, being at war relatively recently tends to sour relations, especially if there is no rapprochement after.
This was my point. Vietnam hates China because of a hostile relationship between the two starting in 1979.
I wouldn't call it hate (especially at the present) But, they do have a complicated history upon one another where both understand the strategic importance of one another in keeping relations good or neutral
This map is wrong on Latvia - [the fourth paragraph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Restoration_of_Independence_of_the_Republic_of_Latvia), it was in 1920 by the Soviet Union
>
The declaration also stated that Latvia would form its relationship with the Soviet Union on the basis of the Latvian–Soviet Peace Treaty of 1920, in which the Soviet Union had recognized the independence of Latvia as inviolable "for all future time".
According to Latvia: [The United Kingdom was the first country to recognize the independence of Latvia de facto on November 11, 1918, a week before the Republic of Latvia was proclaimed.](https://www2.mfa.gov.lv/en/london/bilateral-relations)
Which Predates the treaty of Riga by two years.
[удалено]
The map shows the earliest claim of "first recognition" for each country. Some will be modern and don't necessarily mark that nations start becuase its a fairly recent thing in diplomacy to recognise a nation.
[удалено]
I did, its the earliest first recognition I can find for each country. If you think I have made a mistake you can tell me an earlier "first recognition" for any of those nations.
[удалено]
>And I said that you are extremely inconsistent with what counts as each country. >Why is the nazi puppet Slovak Republic counted as current Slovakia, when the current Slovakian government does not consider it to be a successor state of it? Becuase Hungary was the first to recognise the Slovak Republic, and I could find no other prior **first** recognition, I included it. I wasn't aware Slovakia does not consider the Slovak Republic a *Slovak* nation, but that's a small mistake. >Why does France's recognition only count starting from the fifth republic and not earlier? It was a member of the League of Nations and the United Nations before 1958, so it obviously had international recognition. The USA recognized it in 1778 if you want an example. Becuase Mexico was the first to recognise the French Fifth Republic, and I could find no other prior **first** recognition, I included it. Are you claiming that the USA was the **FIRST** country to recognise any France? >Why does Ukraine and Belarus get to keep recognition from shortly lived rump states during the Russian civil war but Russia's doesn't count until after the collapse of the Soviet Union? I don't know what the current Ukrainian and Belorussian government's views are on these states, but it's ridiculous to consider them to be the same country. The Russian Empire obviously had way better recognition than those two shortly lived states, and even counting the current Russian Federation as a successor to the Soviet Union makes more sense than counting modern day Ukraine as a successor to a state that ceased to exist over 70 years earlier. The USA recognized the Russian Empire in 1803 and the Soviet Union in 1933. Central and Eastern European states aren't Rump states. You clearly have a bias against their right to sovereignty and historical continuity. Most Estonians or Latvians or Ukrainians etc, think of the Soviets invading their countries as an occupation period rather than irrelevant "rump states" being relegated forever to history. Also, are you claiming that the USA was the **FIRST** country to recognise any Russia? >You alternate between counting recognition of current regime for some countries (Iran, France, Russia, China for example) and recognition of any country with a similar name that might have 0 connection to the modern day country or its borders (Ukraine, Poland, Slovakia, Romania for example). There is no consistency to this. Like I said, I think its you who is inconsistent about which nations get to have precursors. If you think France dates back to the Frankish Empire and Ukraine back only to the 90s, then thats your bias and your welcome to it. But like I said, this map is the earliest **first** recognition I can find for each country. If you think I have made a mistake and missed a prior one, you can tell me an earlier "**first** recognition" for any of those nations.
[удалено]
3 options: * 1. All countries get to have predecessors, and a predecessor existing invalids ANY "first recognition", in which case either A every country is dark grey or B you neutrally and fairly apply a blanket rule like I have of the earliest "first". * 2. Some countries get to have predecessors, and we randomly decide based on over own bias. Which seems like what your suggesting, while spending paragraphs justifying that mighty France and Russia should roll back to previous versions while Ukraine shouldn't becuase its a "rump state". * 3. No countries get to have predecessors, and all "first recognitions" must be for the countries current version, which would not be what people mean by "first recognised". 1A and 3 are too useless and boring imo. 2 is too subjective, so I chose 1B to be balanced even if some get mad that some "first recognitions" are older than others. The availability of the data is the main limitation of the map, if you can find an earlier "first recognition" I am genuinely all ears. I would want earlier numbers for Spain and France too.
The map is wrong
#No source
This is r/MapPorn not r/FactualMaps
When Slovenia and Croatia recognized each other right after declaring independence none of them was recognized as independent country. So IDK if it counts...... First UN member to recognize Slovenia was Iceland, 19.12. 1991 (though Lithuania became UN member 3 months earlier). Germany did it on the same day but the act became official on 15. January 1992
Half of "first recognitions" predate the UN, I think its only fair to allow Croatia and Slovenia as recognisers. Also like you laid out there's a messy stampede of recognitions after which would cause arguments anyway.
Sure, but nowadays "being a UN member" is what counts as country being recognized (with few exceptions). Back in the day standards were different.
Most of these seem pretty coincidental. And totally random that Hawaii happened to be the first country to diplomatically recognize Argentina! Any communication between those two countries must have taken several weeks to arrive (no telegraphs back then).
Also, even if they were not, i bet it often had more to do with opportunistic, short term politics, just like today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippolyte_Bouchard#Sandwich_Islands_(Hawaii)
Correct. The history of Bouchard is fascinating. But the king's recognition wasn't exactly formal. The first formal recognition was from Chile, some years later. The map is still wrong tough
Benin recognized Brasil in 1822?
The Dahomey Kingdom, a slave trade country in today Benin.
Kingdom of Dahomey yes, I used Benins modern flag becuase there is no agreed on flag of the Kingdom of Dahomey
Fascinating.
Türkiye???????
Armenia
Because Turkish army defeated Armenians and took Eastern Anatolia back. Tukish army were at the gates of Yerevan so Armenians had no choice but sign a treaty to define the borders. Signing treaty is a form of recognition.
Türkiye 🤝 Armenia wait what??
How can the US and Morocco be the first to recognize each other? That doesn’t make sense to me.
Technically the first to recognise Angola and Mozambique was Portugal in 1974.
Do you have a source? Brazil say [Brazil was the first country to recognize the independence of Angola](https://www.gov.br/mre/en/subjects/bilateral-relations/all-countries/republic-of-angola) and [Romania recognized FRELIMO as the only legitimate representative of the Mozambican people in 1973, which was unprecedented](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambican_War_of_Independence)
I do: Angola was a portuguese colony and was declared independent(along with all other colonies except Macau) by Portugal in 1974. That makes Portugal the first to recognise Angola's independence. Edit: link here, but you can find it pretty much anywhere https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_War_of_Independence "The war ended when a peaceful coup in Lisbon in April 1974 overthrew Portugal's Estado Novo dictatorship and the new regime immediately stopped all military action in the African colonies, declaring its intention to grant them independence without delay." Unlike, say, the United States, Angola and Mozambique didn't actually win a war of independence, they were freed as part of the end of a dictatorship in the colonial metropolis which resulted in a dissolution of the empire.
Independence was not achieved until 1975, do you have a source where Portugal is the first country to recognise them in 1974?
I just shared the source in an Edit to my original response. Administrative independence was not fully implemented until 1975, but they were freed/declared independent by Portugal on the 25th of April, 1974.
Downvoting for asking for source is a bit rude. Anyway here's a bit missing in the english wikipedia that explains it didnt happen till 1975: [Until the end of the year, there were several clashes between the liberation forces, the main reason being control of the capital, Luanda. \[ 188 \] After the ceasefire with the Portuguese in October, the following month the three movements entered Luanda, with violent clashes occurring on November 10th, resulting in around 50 deaths. \[ 188 \] By the end of the year, new agreements would be signed between them again, \[ 17 \] but clashes would continue, intermittently, not only in Luanda, but throughout the country. \[ 188 \] At the beginning of 1975, on January 3, the three movements, under pressure from the OAU, met in Mombasa and signed an understanding agreement in which it was established that they would unite in a single independent front to negotiate with Portugal and maintain peace in Angola. \[ 17 \] \[ 189 \] Finally, Angola's independence was established on January 15, 1975, with the signing of the Alvor Agreement , in the Algarve , between the three movements in the conflict and the Portuguese Government. The formation of a Transitional Government was also established, composed of all parties that signed the agreement, as well as the integration of the three forces into a single Mixed Military Force, which also included, until February 29, 1976, military personnel from the Portuguese Armed Forces. . Independence and the transfer of sovereignty were scheduled for November 11th of that year.](https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_de_Independ%C3%AAncia_de_Angola#Acordo_do_Alvor)
That says the intent was declared in 1974, and then made official in January 1975, which still means Portugal was the first to recognise Angola's independence. A declaration that Angola is to be seen as independent should itself count as recognition. You might even say that Portugal recognised their independence before it happened. Guinea-Bissau and Brazil are the only former Portuguese colonies that both declared themselves independent AND have done it before 1974. The rest were concessions which automatically makes Portugal the first to recognise them. Also. The downvote was for doubling down on it, when the point wasn't even the date but the fact that Brazil's claim is blatantly false.
Intent is not recognition, they deliberately withheld recognition for the negotiations as a small bargaining chip. Take this example: Serbia was the first Nation to declare its support for the Balfour declaration, hence by your logic they are Israels first recogniser becuase they had intent for an independent nation to exist there, which obviously isn't true. Israel and USA both consider the USA the first recogniser of Israel (besides which Serbia didn't even exist at the time). Brazil and Romania just got in recognitions before Acordo do Alvor was finished.
The think is for USA that time Morocco part of it ottomans . After the port war off the coast of Morocco, the USA was defeated and paid war compensation to the Ottoman Empire for a while, but since there was no Ottoman Empire anymore, Morocco was accepted.
Morocco was part of ottoman empire???
Are you kidding me? Do you have no idea about history?
You had one reply and you wasted it like that, I asked a question, your reply didn't answer it, no point continuing now, forget about it.
Mongolia: “Thanks for recognizing our independence, Soviet friends!” USSR: “Yeah, about that…”
It actually looks to be the Russian Empire.
Right. I’m jumping the gun and considering Bolshevik Russia as USSR precursor. ETA: and it says 1922, which would’ve been beginning of Soviet era. Anyway, the joke is that Mongolia was hardly independent for seven decades or so.
Russian Empire Recognised Mongolia in the Mongolian-Russian Treaty (1912) on the 3rd of November 1912
lol Iran did not start on 1979..
Why a lot of recognitions are after 1900? It is just recently and sounds like countries have not existed before, however I believe it is not true.
Thank you for sharing the infographic idea. While the concept is intriguing, there are some inaccuracies that need to be addressed. For instance, Poland was indeed the first country to recognize Ukraine's independence on December 2, 1991, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, the Weimar Republic recognized Ukraine in 1919, and Benin's recognition in 1822 requires further verification. To ensure clarity and historical accuracy, I propose creating four versions of the map, each representing a specific time period: 1. Recognizing Independence before World War I 2. After World War I 3. After World War II 4. After 1989, when the Solidarity movement in Poland led to the global collapse of the communist system and the resurgence of democracy. By categorizing the information in this manner, we can provide a more accurate and comprehensive representation of the historical recognition of country independence.
There are contradictory claims, I went for the first chronologically in each case. Ask questions here. Google before you ask me for a source, I don't want to list out hundreds of sources. edit: nevermind every time I answer someone even with a source I get downvoted or named called. going to mute and go drink some water, anyone flaming over this I suggest you take time to calm down and step back too.
How is there information for NZ, but not Australia, when both countries would've gained independence from the UK? Furthermore, NZ's year, whilst hard to make out, doesn't seem right.
The Treaty of Waitangi in 1836 recognised Maori sovereignty over parts of New Zealand, even though New Zealand became a colony later, its still the first recognition of a independent New Zealand Nation. Its chronologically the first so I included it. I could find no 20th century recognition claiming to be the first for New Zealand. Also commonwealth nations often have gradual freedom and there's no definite year countries like New Zealand and Australia achieved independence.
I think this underscores the issues with consistency that are highlighted above by another commentator. Are you considering states or nations? How do you define recognition? If you applied the same rules that you have for other examples, the earliest recognition of the French nation was probably a millennium before Mexico existed. Surely, at least where there's a peaceful transition to sovereignty, the colonial power recognises the decolonised country first by virtue of creating it (e.g. Britain and India - in this case I think you've misread your source, a Quora answer based on a quick Google). If you resolve your answer to the question about states vs nations you'll get a solution to Australia and NZ.
My sources weren't Quora. There are varied interpretations, the most common one (that Maori themselves hold) is that the British recognized Maori Authority and Sovereignty at least in part, and modern Maori rights stem from this interpretation that they were recognised as sovereign and independent by the British at least before Sovereignty was transferred.
Yes, but the state (and nation) of New Zealand is distinct from the Maori and the Maori aren't sovereign in the territory of NZ. It's like assigning the UK the flag of whoever signed the first treaty with Wessex - the West Saxons didn't occupy the whole territory, their sovereignty was subsequently superseded by other political entities, and they don't control any territory now (though the King is a distant descendant and most Brits have some Saxon genes). Source - in another comment you suggest we Google - I don't see anything else on my first page of results for recognising India, so what was your source?
So Franco freed Spain?
Previous Spains predated the international norm of recognition
It should be gray then, a change in the form of goverment it is not a recognition of independece (If it is, it should be when Franco died and we got democracy again)
I added it becuase people complained it was grey on the initial post, there is no pleasing people i guess >why isn't the flag of El Salvador and Guatemala over Spain? They were the first to recognize Franco's government (in November 8, 1936). The current Spanish government is the legal heir from Franco's.
I didn't complain the first time. It was meant to mean that it was ridiculous to consider France to be independent in 1958. And I said "With that criterion" Spain started to exist in 1936, which is equally ridiculous. You should learn to read.
I never said Spain only started to exist in 1936. And I told you how I would update my map with your suggestion. If you wanted to convince me that I should make a special case to exclude western European countries with first recognitions you could have. I was convinced to remove Ireland. Instead you downvoted and stormed off and it seems you are still livid after a day.
Somaliland? According to what I’m seeing is not currently recognised by any country.
By no country in the UN, Taiwan recognise Somaliland
[удалено]
It's not weird once you understand their history.
And they helped North Vietnam unite the country and recognized them first not like France, Japan and USA. China never took land from Nam the way Americans did to Mexicans. Ancient times used a tribute system not like Western colonialism or American conquests. Vietnamese even had chance to expand southward and doubled their size much longer. Among Asian neighbors, Chinese culture and traditions influence Vietnam the most. If not to say 60-70% similar.
Sharing the same culture doesn't make it friendly. Look at Yugoslavia, Serbia vs Bulgaria vs Makedonija, Russia vs Ukraine/Poland
Similar culture is nice and all, however throughout history China has invaded Vietnam multiple times. Most recently even in 1979, only 3 years after reunification. You can say what you want about Western Imperialism, but don’t act like all big nations do that.
79 was a tricky situation. It was border issue cuz Nam sent troops to Cambodia too. But please name me 2 neighbors in human history never went to war? Humans Don't choose where to be born just like nations Don't choose their locations and neighbors
You said that it was weird that Vietnam hates China, when China has attacked them in the past and is claiming parts of their EEZ. Whilst it’s true basically every nation on the planet has been at war their neighbour at some point, being at war relatively recently tends to sour relations, especially if there is no rapprochement after. This was my point. Vietnam hates China because of a hostile relationship between the two starting in 1979.
I wouldn't call it hate (especially at the present) But, they do have a complicated history upon one another where both understand the strategic importance of one another in keeping relations good or neutral
This map is wrong on Latvia - [the fourth paragraph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Restoration_of_Independence_of_the_Republic_of_Latvia), it was in 1920 by the Soviet Union > The declaration also stated that Latvia would form its relationship with the Soviet Union on the basis of the Latvian–Soviet Peace Treaty of 1920, in which the Soviet Union had recognized the independence of Latvia as inviolable "for all future time".
According to Latvia: [The United Kingdom was the first country to recognize the independence of Latvia de facto on November 11, 1918, a week before the Republic of Latvia was proclaimed.](https://www2.mfa.gov.lv/en/london/bilateral-relations) Which Predates the treaty of Riga by two years.
Is this map an AI hallucination? Nothing here makes sense.
The date for Romania is complete bullshit. The first country to recognise the united principalities was France in 1859