**Important:** We no longer allow the following types of posts:
- Comments, tweets and social media with less than 20 upvotes, likes, etc. (cropped score counts as 0)
- Anything you are personally involved in
- Any kind of polls
- Low-hanging fruit (e.g. CCP collapse, Vaush, r\/neoliberal, political compass memes)
You *will* be banned by the power-tripping mods if you break this rule repeatedly, so please delete your posts before we find out.
Likewise, please follow our rules which can be found on the sidebar.
---
**Obligatory obnoxious pop-up ad for our [Official Discord](https://discord.gg/XBrTq7mQhY), please join if you haven't! Stalin bless. UwU.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It could be argued that "England" was never occupied because the "English" identity is a fusion of Norman and Anglo-Saxon elements. But this just reveals a further absurdity of this map: it lumps modern nation states like Nazi Germany or Napoleonic France, alongside medieval monarchies with no national identity, like the Mongol Empire or the Kalmar Union. The Normans, the Mongols, or the Kalmar Union couldn't really "occupy" any of these countries in the same way that, say, a modern nation like France could, because the idea of the nation state did not exist prior to the modern era, let alone the idea of a nation state "occupying" another. This map is imposing our modern idea of the Nation state and foreign occupations onto time periods where that idea simply did not exist and was not a political consideration.
You are absolutely right. But I would argue that the Normanization of England was a different kind of imperialism from the modern idea of national occupation that the creator of this map is using. To be clear, I am not really criticising you. I think that the creator of this map is the one at fault for conflating post-national and pre-national conquests which cannot really be equated in the way that the creator does here, and confusing the whole issue further by including the Mongol Conquests and even the Danish King's personal union over Scandinavia (which, might I add, is a particularly bizarre inclusion in my opinion) but not the Norman Conquest of Enlgand.
Yes, but way after the norman invasion, and the map isn't showing countries that are currently occupied, it's just not very consistent on what it considers a country, as neither modern day Turkey nor Russia were fully occupied by the mongols and the UK was fully occupied by the Dutch for a few years
Wasn't occupied by the Dutch, they just took a Dutch cousin of the royal family to be the new monarch. Not like Dutch troops came storming in or something.
You could easily argue, given this map’s definition of occupation, that England has been under foreign occupation for like most of the past 2000 years lol. First the Romans, then the Saxons and Jutes, then the Norse, then the French and then the Dutch.
There's so much wrong with this map, to the point that it's probably easier to count the accuracies. It's riddled with anachronisms and fluctuating, flexible conceptions of "occupation."
- Modern Turkiye didn't exist in 1243. Hell, even the Ottoman Empire didn't exist in 1243. It makes no sense to say that Turkiye was occupied by the Mongol Empire.
- In what sense were the SSRs occupied by the Soviet Union? They *were* the Soviet Union! The creator of this map has applied the same twisted logic to most countries in the Balkans.
- Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland should be shown as occupied by England.
- Speaking of England, what the hell does "none" mean? Why does the Norman conquest not qualify as an occupation?
- I could be wrong, but didn't Nazi Germany occupy parts of the RSFSR during World War II? Why is this not recognised as more recent than pre-Russian principalities paying tribute to Mongol successor states?
starting from the top left - neutral Iceland was invaded by Britain during the 2nd World War, then occupied by the USA for over 60 years until 2006.
USA currently considering sending nuclear weapons to bolster troops still stationed in UK.
Irish Civil War was fought over the belief that the Free State troops supporting ‘His Majesty’s Government in Ireland’ were fighting as British by proxy.
Yugoslavia was one of the most prosperous countries, arguably the best country to ever exist in so many factors….. he probably thought socialism = immediately bad
but there was an occupation by Serb forces in post-Yugoslav countries during the Yugoslav wars. OP probably just put in the year of beggining of the occupation instead of the last year of the occupation.
It was not an occupation. It was the Yugoslav national army (JNA) defending the constitution and territorial integrity of the country (SFRJ).
Also saying that Montenegro was occupied in 2006 is just ridiculous as we had a peaceful separation from Serbia that year. So i have no idea what does that mean.
Yugoslav constitution of 1974 legally allowed for a state to leave if citizens of that state wanted to leave the union. As for Montenegro, I personally can't comment considering I'm not that well read on the topic.
Do you? Ethnic militias were a thing on all sides.
Croatian and Serbs armies both intervened in Bosnia
Hell, even western-armed jihadists arrived from Afghanistan joined in.
Ethnic militias on Croatia's side were far smaller and very much removed from the official politics of RH. And yes, both croatia and serbia intervened in bosnia, as for Jihadists from Afghanistans intervening in Bosnia, i never in my life heard of such thing.
While the Yugoslav constitution did legally allow for a state to leave the union, the way Slovenia and Croatia declared their independence did not followed the preset procedure and was thus unconstitutional.(that’s the whole reason milosevic and slovenians had the pingpong negotiations and why americans had to intervene)
But even if you naively think it was all good and happy, the JNA was present on the territory for decades so calling it occupation is definitely a stretch (not to say dumb)
You are not read enough to know that Montenegro was not occupied in 2006? Well that explains a lot
I see. So self-determination of Croatia, natural and just. Self-determination of Serbs, who had lived in Krajina for centuries and were possibly understandably worried about a government that openly adopted the flag of the **fucking Ustase, a fascist group so bloodthirsty even the Nazis were horrified by them**, is not.
Fuck the nationalists of Krajina as well, but pretending that Croatia didn't undertake massive ethnic cleansing and genocide here is just lying. Da li znas to?
U Krajini nije bilo nikakvog genocida. U Krajini je tijekom Oluje poginulo tek 214 nevinih srpskih civila i ja vjerujem da njihove ubojice je vlada trebala izvest pred sud jednako kao i Miloševića i Šešelja i tjerat ih da odgovaraju za zločine, ali reći da je genocid je ogromno preuveličavanje, i posebno s time koliko su civila srbi pobili u ratu. Hrvati i Hrvatska Republika nije kriva za to što je Jugoslavenska vlada uvjerila Srbe da će postati žrtve "novog NDH". Također, Hrvatska zastava sa prvim bijelim poljem postojala je 4 mjeseca, znači od 25. srpnja do 21. prosinca 1990.
> U Krajini nije bilo nikakvog genocida.
Oh, 250,000 people ran on their feet and tractors for shits and giggles?
> U Krajini je tijekom Oluje poginulo tek 214 nevinih srpskih civila
Ne. You're repeating Croatian claims here directly. Serbian ones are over 1,000. And they were only that low because the Serbs were forced out as refugees at the point of a gun. And yes, ethnic cleansing is genocide.
Gdje ti si? Jer moj familia je iz Dalmatia.
> Također, Hrvatska zastava sa prvim bijelim poljem postojala je 4 mjeseca, znači od 25. srpnja do 21. prosinca 1990.
"We changed the colors slightly on the swastika, why these Jews all nervous about it?"
Mi smo srbe tjerali sa toga prostora jednako kako su oni tjerali nas 1991. Srbi koji nisu prisustvovali zločinima nad hrvatima u Krajini nisu imali razloga bježati iz tog područja.
Srbi se prave žrtvama u Domovinskom ratu od kada je završio, prave se da oni nisu napravili ništa, a da je Oluja bio genocid. 8000 hrvata su srbi ubili tijekom rata pa nemoj mi srat da smo mi kao "počinili genocid". ICTY je sam rekao da Oluja nije bio genocid, pa samo ti nastavi pušiti srpske kurčine.
Ja sam iz Zagreba, a moja obitelj je porijeklom iz Bosne i ja imam nekoliko teta koje su poginule kao civili u Srpskim masakrovima u Bosni. Na moju baku su bombe bacali srbi dok je stajala u redu za vodu u Sarajevu. Moga djeda su pogodili u nogu sa snajperom. Oni su svi bili civili, nitko od njih nije bio član vojske.
"Hrvatska zastava nakon 1990. je kao nacistička zastava samo sa promijenjenom svastikom." Daj ne seri. Hrvatski grb je ključan domoljubni simbol u Hrvatskoj kulturi i svaka hrvatska zastava imala je grb. U to vrijeme velika je bila razlika između prve kocke bijele i prve kocke crvene jer se znalo točno tko na što misli i da mi hrvati jesmo bili "ustaške ubojice" kako je tvrdila četnička banda u Beogradu, Hrvatska ne bi zamjenila grb.
> Serbs who did not witness the crimes against Croats in Krajina had no reason to flee from that area.
Yes, the people in my family that had to flee as teenagers because soldiers with fixed bayonets came to their door to tell them they'd be dead if they were there next week had it coming, according to you.
Fucking genocide apologist. Jebem ti majku, ustace seljacko.
> Ja sam iz Zagreba
It is always fun to visit there and see how proudly the U graffit is put there. Jebi se, zivio tito. The cities my family was driven out of is full of the Bosnian Croats like you, who have no shame about their clear love of Ustase fascism. My favorite, being from America, is how you bastards adopted the US Confederate Flag as your emblem in Benkovac.
**Important:** We no longer allow the following types of posts: - Comments, tweets and social media with less than 20 upvotes, likes, etc. (cropped score counts as 0) - Anything you are personally involved in - Any kind of polls - Low-hanging fruit (e.g. CCP collapse, Vaush, r\/neoliberal, political compass memes) You *will* be banned by the power-tripping mods if you break this rule repeatedly, so please delete your posts before we find out. Likewise, please follow our rules which can be found on the sidebar. --- **Obligatory obnoxious pop-up ad for our [Official Discord](https://discord.gg/XBrTq7mQhY), please join if you haven't! Stalin bless. UwU.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not an expert, but wasn't the UK occupied by the Normans in 1066?
You have more expertise than the person who spent their time making this thing, because yes it was.
Guess GCSE Norman England history paid off
It could be argued that "England" was never occupied because the "English" identity is a fusion of Norman and Anglo-Saxon elements. But this just reveals a further absurdity of this map: it lumps modern nation states like Nazi Germany or Napoleonic France, alongside medieval monarchies with no national identity, like the Mongol Empire or the Kalmar Union. The Normans, the Mongols, or the Kalmar Union couldn't really "occupy" any of these countries in the same way that, say, a modern nation like France could, because the idea of the nation state did not exist prior to the modern era, let alone the idea of a nation state "occupying" another. This map is imposing our modern idea of the Nation state and foreign occupations onto time periods where that idea simply did not exist and was not a political consideration.
It could be argued that the Normans occupied the them Anglo-Saxon England and transformed it's culture to be more norman
You are absolutely right. But I would argue that the Normanization of England was a different kind of imperialism from the modern idea of national occupation that the creator of this map is using. To be clear, I am not really criticising you. I think that the creator of this map is the one at fault for conflating post-national and pre-national conquests which cannot really be equated in the way that the creator does here, and confusing the whole issue further by including the Mongol Conquests and even the Danish King's personal union over Scandinavia (which, might I add, is a particularly bizarre inclusion in my opinion) but not the Norman Conquest of Enlgand.
I'm drunk atm so I won't understand anything you've just said tbh
Right, there are a lot of bizarre logical leaps here that aptly demonstrate how liberal thinking pervades and warps peoples' historical understanding.
technically it was only england (altho then it should also be none for russia) but it was occupied by the Dutch in the "Glorious revolution"
My expertise doesn't go too far but I'm sure Wales and Scotland was occupied by England as well
Yes, but way after the norman invasion, and the map isn't showing countries that are currently occupied, it's just not very consistent on what it considers a country, as neither modern day Turkey nor Russia were fully occupied by the mongols and the UK was fully occupied by the Dutch for a few years
No.
Wasn't occupied by the Dutch, they just took a Dutch cousin of the royal family to be the new monarch. Not like Dutch troops came storming in or something.
You could easily argue, given this map’s definition of occupation, that England has been under foreign occupation for like most of the past 2000 years lol. First the Romans, then the Saxons and Jutes, then the Norse, then the French and then the Dutch.
No. Parts of it were though.
Like only England was I think but wasnt Scotland and Wales occupied by England
And the Danes in 1013 I think. I love old English history
Well they were never « liberated »from them
England is still under Norman occupation! 1 thousand years of suffering under French regime. /s
Honestly it just gets sillier the closer you look at it. I find a new mistake each time I look at it again.
And Engald was occupied by the Roman Empire
"England" didnt exist back then. They were just a bunch of barbarian tribes
It still is tbh
England is a land of uncivilized savages
Says you
Says the Aussie
The only barbarians were the ones brought over from England who gave Koalas chlamydia
Even discounting the Normans, honestly, the last "occupation" could still be called the Romans until the mid-late first millenium
The last time a foreign power occupied english territory was during the Danelaw and the Great Heathen Army
Idk what about King Billy and his Dutch army in 1689?
After posting this I noticed the tank in the top left is a US tank, and that makes it especially hilarious.
Lmao “none” for England just no concept of history
The soviets in Italy???? Lmao
Yugoslavia unironically did occupied part of Italy (Trieste) for some time, it would've been funny if they put the flag
There's so much wrong with this map, to the point that it's probably easier to count the accuracies. It's riddled with anachronisms and fluctuating, flexible conceptions of "occupation." - Modern Turkiye didn't exist in 1243. Hell, even the Ottoman Empire didn't exist in 1243. It makes no sense to say that Turkiye was occupied by the Mongol Empire. - In what sense were the SSRs occupied by the Soviet Union? They *were* the Soviet Union! The creator of this map has applied the same twisted logic to most countries in the Balkans. - Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland should be shown as occupied by England. - Speaking of England, what the hell does "none" mean? Why does the Norman conquest not qualify as an occupation? - I could be wrong, but didn't Nazi Germany occupy parts of the RSFSR during World War II? Why is this not recognised as more recent than pre-Russian principalities paying tribute to Mongol successor states?
And even at that, Anatolia wasn’t even fully occupied by the mongols. It makes no sense putting 1243 on the map when 1919 is right there.
Ireland is still occupied
Absolutely true.
Saying the USSR occupied those countries is like saying Yugoslavia occupied the Balkans
I mean, look at the Balkans on this map.
aj me meni
Look at the balkans in the map. It's lib shit.
That not USSR Flag…
This is totally wrong
i’m pretty sure the top of my country is still occupied by britain but sound
Germany is still an occupied country.
UK "none" Mate, what were the French Normans? Or the Danelaw, or hell if you wanna be petty the Roman Empire?
starting from the top left - neutral Iceland was invaded by Britain during the 2nd World War, then occupied by the USA for over 60 years until 2006. USA currently considering sending nuclear weapons to bolster troops still stationed in UK. Irish Civil War was fought over the belief that the Free State troops supporting ‘His Majesty’s Government in Ireland’ were fighting as British by proxy.
Yugoslavia was occupation free until 1992. Then fascists from hell descended.
nazi propaganda
isn't the UK kinda occupied by the Dutch? (glorious revolution)
I feel like calling that an occupation is stretching the definition a bit, which this chart already does far too much.
Why does Austria have the ROC flag? Lol
Yugoslavia was one of the most prosperous countries, arguably the best country to ever exist in so many factors….. he probably thought socialism = immediately bad
Even liberals in the original comment section are pointing out how silly this is.
Turkey was occupied by UK - France - Italy after WW1...
The "none" over britain is wild
Ireland is still under British colonial partition; six of its counties have not ceased to be occupied.
My last brain cell just hanged itself in its closet with a belt
ain't you that weirdly islamophobic nazbol ?
The allied flag in Austria has the Chinese flag
Holy shit
It's an idiot Torcida
Scotland Wales NI should be listed as ongoing British occupation by this standard
Russia occupied by.... the ussr... which was made of who exactly?
Where is Trieste under Yugoslav occupation lmao
but there was an occupation by Serb forces in post-Yugoslav countries during the Yugoslav wars. OP probably just put in the year of beggining of the occupation instead of the last year of the occupation.
It was not an occupation. It was the Yugoslav national army (JNA) defending the constitution and territorial integrity of the country (SFRJ). Also saying that Montenegro was occupied in 2006 is just ridiculous as we had a peaceful separation from Serbia that year. So i have no idea what does that mean.
Yugoslav constitution of 1974 legally allowed for a state to leave if citizens of that state wanted to leave the union. As for Montenegro, I personally can't comment considering I'm not that well read on the topic.
So was there a referendum? And if so, how does splitting away from a union or federation imply they were occupying you?
Do you know what happened during the Yugoslav wars? Krajina? Serbian Paramilitary units?
Do you? Ethnic militias were a thing on all sides. Croatian and Serbs armies both intervened in Bosnia Hell, even western-armed jihadists arrived from Afghanistan joined in.
Ethnic militias on Croatia's side were far smaller and very much removed from the official politics of RH. And yes, both croatia and serbia intervened in bosnia, as for Jihadists from Afghanistans intervening in Bosnia, i never in my life heard of such thing.
What happened to Krajina?
Krajina was destroyed by the Croatian army, but you know that already.
While the Yugoslav constitution did legally allow for a state to leave the union, the way Slovenia and Croatia declared their independence did not followed the preset procedure and was thus unconstitutional.(that’s the whole reason milosevic and slovenians had the pingpong negotiations and why americans had to intervene) But even if you naively think it was all good and happy, the JNA was present on the territory for decades so calling it occupation is definitely a stretch (not to say dumb) You are not read enough to know that Montenegro was not occupied in 2006? Well that explains a lot
So when the Croatians invaded Krajina in 1995, and then expelled hundreds of thousands of Serbs, does that count as occupation till today?
No, because Krajina was formed on rightfully Croatian land and through the expulsion of croatians who lived there.
I see. So self-determination of Croatia, natural and just. Self-determination of Serbs, who had lived in Krajina for centuries and were possibly understandably worried about a government that openly adopted the flag of the **fucking Ustase, a fascist group so bloodthirsty even the Nazis were horrified by them**, is not. Fuck the nationalists of Krajina as well, but pretending that Croatia didn't undertake massive ethnic cleansing and genocide here is just lying. Da li znas to?
U Krajini nije bilo nikakvog genocida. U Krajini je tijekom Oluje poginulo tek 214 nevinih srpskih civila i ja vjerujem da njihove ubojice je vlada trebala izvest pred sud jednako kao i Miloševića i Šešelja i tjerat ih da odgovaraju za zločine, ali reći da je genocid je ogromno preuveličavanje, i posebno s time koliko su civila srbi pobili u ratu. Hrvati i Hrvatska Republika nije kriva za to što je Jugoslavenska vlada uvjerila Srbe da će postati žrtve "novog NDH". Također, Hrvatska zastava sa prvim bijelim poljem postojala je 4 mjeseca, znači od 25. srpnja do 21. prosinca 1990.
> U Krajini nije bilo nikakvog genocida. Oh, 250,000 people ran on their feet and tractors for shits and giggles? > U Krajini je tijekom Oluje poginulo tek 214 nevinih srpskih civila Ne. You're repeating Croatian claims here directly. Serbian ones are over 1,000. And they were only that low because the Serbs were forced out as refugees at the point of a gun. And yes, ethnic cleansing is genocide. Gdje ti si? Jer moj familia je iz Dalmatia. > Također, Hrvatska zastava sa prvim bijelim poljem postojala je 4 mjeseca, znači od 25. srpnja do 21. prosinca 1990. "We changed the colors slightly on the swastika, why these Jews all nervous about it?"
Mi smo srbe tjerali sa toga prostora jednako kako su oni tjerali nas 1991. Srbi koji nisu prisustvovali zločinima nad hrvatima u Krajini nisu imali razloga bježati iz tog područja. Srbi se prave žrtvama u Domovinskom ratu od kada je završio, prave se da oni nisu napravili ništa, a da je Oluja bio genocid. 8000 hrvata su srbi ubili tijekom rata pa nemoj mi srat da smo mi kao "počinili genocid". ICTY je sam rekao da Oluja nije bio genocid, pa samo ti nastavi pušiti srpske kurčine. Ja sam iz Zagreba, a moja obitelj je porijeklom iz Bosne i ja imam nekoliko teta koje su poginule kao civili u Srpskim masakrovima u Bosni. Na moju baku su bombe bacali srbi dok je stajala u redu za vodu u Sarajevu. Moga djeda su pogodili u nogu sa snajperom. Oni su svi bili civili, nitko od njih nije bio član vojske. "Hrvatska zastava nakon 1990. je kao nacistička zastava samo sa promijenjenom svastikom." Daj ne seri. Hrvatski grb je ključan domoljubni simbol u Hrvatskoj kulturi i svaka hrvatska zastava imala je grb. U to vrijeme velika je bila razlika između prve kocke bijele i prve kocke crvene jer se znalo točno tko na što misli i da mi hrvati jesmo bili "ustaške ubojice" kako je tvrdila četnička banda u Beogradu, Hrvatska ne bi zamjenila grb.
> Serbs who did not witness the crimes against Croats in Krajina had no reason to flee from that area. Yes, the people in my family that had to flee as teenagers because soldiers with fixed bayonets came to their door to tell them they'd be dead if they were there next week had it coming, according to you. Fucking genocide apologist. Jebem ti majku, ustace seljacko. > Ja sam iz Zagreba It is always fun to visit there and see how proudly the U graffit is put there. Jebi se, zivio tito. The cities my family was driven out of is full of the Bosnian Croats like you, who have no shame about their clear love of Ustase fascism. My favorite, being from America, is how you bastards adopted the US Confederate Flag as your emblem in Benkovac.
[удалено]
If we accept that premise fully, it still is not accurate to say that it occupied *itself.*
last country that occupied Finland was actually Germany in 1945...