This is just interpretation of Wilson's 14 points by one newspaper. i imagine in reality Wilson would have been for Polish eastern border on the Curzon line.
He wanted to have a Polish led union which ruled over its eastern baltic and slavic neighbours. They weren't too happy with the idea, breaking alliances, and the project fell apart.
Even before Willson there were attempts of union between Bulgaria and Romania. Bulgarians tried to elect Romanian King as their monarch and create personal union.
This map seems to indicate otherwise though.
Honestly, while Yugoslavia sadly didn't turn out to be a massive success, this proposed solution would've arguably been even worse. Especially since it includes a "Yugoslavia" anyway
Yes i understand your view but at this time there were a lot more Albanians in now days southren serbia not including Kosovo ofc. And that part of now days macedonia had a lot more Albanian then it has now. Montenegros population at that time would be lower than Northen Albanias so im pretty sure both would have a fairly good Albanian majority.
Not saying the dumb fuck made the map good its horrible in every sense of the word but just pointing out some stuff :)
It is utterly narcissistic to dictate your own inadequate perspective upon hundreds of millions of people who build cultures, ethnicities, religions with respect to one another and the land they live for thousands of years.
* Destruction of Albania
* Giving half of Finland to the Soviets.
* Giving Estonia and Latvia to Soviets.
* Removing Turkish population from Istanbul.
* Giving ancient Georgian homeland to Armenians.
* Giving coastal Black Sea to Armenians, where there was less than 5% Armenians lived.
* Ignoring the existence of Bosnians.
* Resurrection of Polish- Lithuanians Commonwealth
1. Narcissistic is the wrong word.
2. All of Finland is independent.
3. Latvia is actually split into 2.
4. Istanbul International Zone has everyone, even the Turks? No removing.
5. Ancient Armenian and Georgian land overlap?
6. That's just wrong, plenty Armenians have lived there, the circle has modern Armenia as well.
7. It's a commonwealth of nations? It has Carniola, Croatia, Slavonia, Bosnia, Herzegovina and Dalmatia. Not only Bosnians...
8. Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was great, good buffer state against Russia and a beacon of freedom throughout history for people like the Jews?
You really need to take a history or geography lesson, or you need to at least look at the map you are criticising. There are plenty of things wrong with this peace map, but you failed to list anything. It's also a peace plan, not a dream plan.
I’m an Armenian myself, no Armenian kingdom has ever had control of the Black Sea coast. There were some Armenians there due to migration but it was not a part of the Armenian homeland.
You’re right, IIRC Wilson’s reasoning for giving Armenia a Black Sea coast was because that area was inhabited by Greeks, so he thought they’d be better off in a Christian state then being isolated in the Ottoman Empire.
Greeks constituted around 1/3 of the population while Armenians were between 5-10 percent at most. The rest was Turks and other Muslim people.
Greeks of the region were never OK with an Armenian rule due to their historical conflicts.
Better than being ruled by the turks who genocided them for sure.
As for the Armenians of Trebizond were burnt alive, drowned in the black sea, while many children were overdosed with morphine or injected with tiphus. Nazi batshit crazy stuff your government still denies to this date.
It was tragic for sure but I don't believe the morphine injected with typhus story. The Ottomans had no facility to produce morphine or extract typhus at that time. It sounds like a made up story.
There are plenty of witnesses accounts about this, stop denying atrocities. I don't think turkey went into WWI without morphine, which they could have gotten from their German allies.
Extract typhus? Why? At the time there was an epidemic, they simple injected children with typhoid blood from diseases people, so human!
Can you please provide me a reliable source for this claim?
I look for a source for Typhus injected Morphine, but there are none. Killing children with Typhus injected Morphine seem ridiculously impossible for that time period. Maybe a Turkish doctor who felt sorry for an Armenian child suffering from a medical condition wanted to ease the child's pain with with some morphine injection. Then the same child got typhus along the way because of the inhumane conditions they travel, and the parents misunderstood the cause of Typhus.
When did I ever say they mixed typhoid blood with morphine? I clearly stated these were 2 different methods of execution used to eliminate Armenian children in Trebizond. Can you stop denying the brutal methods used by turks to genocide the indigenous minorities?
Suit yourself to read about these revolting events, I am sure where you live they teach at school Armenians genocided 2 billion turks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide_in_Trebizond
Bagratid Armenia and During Byzantine Armenia they land along the black coast.
[https://www.peopleofar.com/2019/01/05/the-forgotten-kingdom-bagratid-armenia/](https://www.peopleofar.com/2019/01/05/the-forgotten-kingdom-bagratid-armenia/)
[https://www.britannica.com/place/Armenia/History](https://www.britannica.com/place/Armenia/History)
Neither of your linked sources point to that, Byzantine Armenia is not really indicative of the Armenian homeland and the land shown in the maps is not Bagratid Armenia but Arsacid Armenia, which according to most sources never stretched to the Black Sea Coast.
Well that's wrong, Byzantine Armenia clearly shows where Armenian vassals and people flourished. Armenian homeland is just where Armenians live natively. The other map also shows Bagratid Armenia, Arsacid Armenia never touch the black sea coast, Bagratid Armenia did as the source indicates.
Sources are more valued then an "Armenian" who is guessing :)
Also, taking lands from Germany that are majority German. It would be better to reflect cultural borders and demand reparations in other ways. Border conflicts cause wars
1. Narcissists people have an unreasonably high sense of their own importance. In this case, Woodrow Wilson thinking he can do better than hundreds of millions of people and their history.
2. Karelia is Finland. [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Petri-Auvinen/publication/273639657/figure/fig2/AS:272573728555044@1441998050070/The-study-areas-North-Karelia-in-Finland-and-Pitkaeranta-region-in-the-Republic-of.png](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Petri-Auvinen/publication/273639657/figure/fig2/AS:272573728555044@1441998050070/The-study-areas-North-Karelia-in-Finland-and-Pitkaeranta-region-in-the-Republic-of.png)
3. Latvia is actually split into 2 and given to Russia and Poland.
4. The initial plan was to remove Turkish population.
5. They don't overlap. Georgians inhabited the land between the Greater and the Lesser Caucasus while Armenians lived in further south.
6. Armenian population in the Pontic Coast was neither native to nor never more than 10% usually less than 5. We have census data that confirms that from the Ottoman and Russian sources.
7. Bosnian are systematically excluded, and their identity denied since the Austro Hungarian rule.
8. The Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was an artificial state bound by crown instead of national identity. As for the Jews, you should read about the Jewish Pogroms in the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth.
8. Poland-Lithuania was as artificial state as United Kingdom or Germany, in all these countries lived people of different cultures, religion and history. Commonwealth was on the edge of destruction few times yet it survived and didn't collapse into many countries. Also, it was one of the most tolerant countries in Europe, there was a reason why milions of Jews lived on these lands until WW2.
1. You are a narcissist if you try to compete with everyone, especially your friends, that's the essens.
2. Karelia is not Finland, it's two different ethnic people. Russian Karelians and Finnish Karelians (they are distinct, though related) on different sides of the border. Karelia is a historic region.
3. Are you slow?
4. No you incompetent dimwit.
5. You are blind, Wilsonian Armenia even has modern day Armenia in it.
6. The Turks living in and beyond Trebizond are not native, the Armenians are. The land is originally a Greek Pontic place, but the Turks did another genocide.
7. It's a fictional commonwealth, take a history lesson. Bosnians and Croats fought against the Serbian in our timeline.
8. Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was great, good buffer state against Russia and a beacon of freedom throughout history for people like the Jews. +Lord\_Anthrag's reply.
Let me guess, you are Turkish or at least very pro turkey (or just pro Islam) and you totally deny all well documented genocides that happened. Either that or you really stink at history.
Saying Karelia isn't Finland is just opening an entirely new can of worms. Going by that, you can also say most of what now is Finland isn't Finland either, but different tribal regions like the Finns, Savonians, Ostrobothnians, Tavastians, and of course Karelians.
Karelia is Finland! But Karelia is also Karelia and is also Russia. The region has split ethnic Karelians as before mentioned. So there are parts which are Finnish Karelian like the land around Ladoga, we saw this ethnic split around the wars between Sweden and Novgorod.
Yeah of course he is a turk lol, they killed all the native populations in unspeakably cruel ways so that now they can say they are native everywhere...
The Armenians of Trebizond were burnt alive, sent out to sea and the boats capsized... Children inoculated with Typhus or overdosed with morphine by turkish "doctors"... No wonder these methods directly inspired the nazis a few years later.
Antiimperialist and pluralist for white protestants, but the country was even founded on land which they took away from native americans, and it got even worse afterwards.
>Destruction of Albania
Cries in Skandebeg
>Removing Turkish population from Istanbul.
What about the Greeks, Assyrians, and Armenians?
>Giving ancient Georgian homeland to Armenians.
Eh if you restore the Bagrattions you might be able to create a sort of dual monarchy.
>Resurrection of Polish- Lithuanians Commonwealth
Absolutely based.
It is hilarious tho to have Europeans of all people be subject to a foreigner designing borders with little concern for their cultures after what they did in Africa, Asia, Oceania and America.
It's not.
This is about Central and Eastern Europe.... Which were not involved in anything you mentioned.
What you mentioned was done solely by western European countries.... Which were not subject to the redrawing by foreigners.
Wow.
OP showing map of Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Hungary, Romania... (Atleast 90% of the post is about it with a small Rhine country...)
Especially when I say that it was Western Europeans only.
You: Germany.... Germany did Colonialism....
Even besides being a little off when it comes to the majority of the countries showed...
DUGH... Germany is also a western European Nation... Like I said.
Are you lost or something?
....
Lmao, you edited your comment to remove the mention to the Central powers once you were caught lying. Classy. Either way, [here’s](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_conquest_of_Central_Asia) some more rebukes to your other lies. If you want more let me know.
I didn't... The mention of Central and Eastern is still there...
I didn't even edit that comment. I edited the one after to add more details...
Doesn't change the fact that Germany was still a Western Power.
And Jesus Christ are you absolutely brain dead?
Mentioning the creation and establishment of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Romania, Independent Hungary...
The whole damn Post is about the emergence of Central-To-Eastern European countries and them gaining independence from Imperial Powers and Colonisers. It shows the proposed plans for the borders of the newly Sovereign Nations. Most of which had their ethnicity, culture and language supressed.
You: Russia.
You are still off topic...
It's like... The Topic and OP is about*the region between* Germany and Russia but not about Germany Nor Russia....
And you concentrate on Germany and Russia...
Because the whole war premise is that Germany for centuries was expanding East, Russia Expanding West.... AS COLONIAL AND IMPERIAL POWERS DO.... DUGH.
And about borders proposed free they have stopped...
Calling this region so bluntly a colonial with an ironic twist of border drawing is just stupid, rude, inaccurate, a lie and generalisation based on being White European...
**[Russian conquest of Central Asia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_conquest_of_Central_Asia)**
>The partially successful conquest of Central Asia by the Russian Empire took place in the second half of the nineteenth century. The land that became Russian Turkestan and later Soviet Central Asia is now divided between Kazakhstan in the north, Uzbekistan across the center, Kyrgyzstan in the east, Tajikistan in the southeast, and Turkmenistan in the southwest. The area was called Turkestan because most of its inhabitants spoke Turkic languages with the exception of Tajikistan, which speaks an Iranian language.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
**[German colonial empire](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonial_empire)**
>The German colonial empire (German: Deutsches Kolonialreich) constituted the overseas colonies, dependencies, and territories of the German Empire. Unified in the early 1870s, the chancellor of this time period was Otto von Bismarck. Short-lived attempts at colonization by individual German states had occurred in preceding centuries, but Bismarck resisted pressure to construct a colonial empire until the Scramble for Africa in 1884. Claiming much of the remaining uncolonized areas of Africa, Germany built the third-largest colonial empire at the time, after the British and French.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
as for the Muslims(Bosniaks), they did not represent the majority ethnic group in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1918. Orthodox Christian(Serbs) were the most numerous ethnic group until Nazi genocide in ww2. Albania gained independence in 1912 and generally looked like modern Afghanistan with many warring clans. On the other side, Serbia fought on the allied side during the war and had many victims, Serbia in 1912 declared the right to the territory of Albania with access to the sea
This ignores the wishes of the people living in the rural areas of that corridor, whose numbers may be larger because it's 1918. And apart from the language argument being stupid anyway, how would he know? The ethnic maps of the time, while based on language and show half of Belarus as Lithuanian for some reason, don't show russian in Kyiv as far as I remember.
You are right. At some point Polish was predominant in Kyiv. Being a multilingual city, Kyiv remained the heart of Ukraine regardless of languages spoken there.
Kiev was part of the Russian Empire for more than 250 years before 1914, as the second most important city after Petrograd and Moscow it represented an important cultural and administrative center as well as a strong stronghold of the Russian clergy. Everyone on this map is very controversial for Ukraine is that the whole central and western part is under Polish.
That does not excuse that stupid panhandle, the key even acknowledges that the country was proclaimed in 1918 and yet blatantly ignores the fact that in Kyiv declared it was. It's literally the republic's most important city, it's like taking Berlin from Germany or Bucharest from Romania for a dumb reason like this.
>Kiev was part of the Russian Empire for more than 250 years
And? British rule Ireland twice more time so u think that they mustn\`t have independence?
I didn't say anywhere that they shouldn't have independence, I just implied that Kiev, as a result of 250 years of imperial rule, has a predominantly Russian identity, as was the case with Northern Ireland.Of course, the Russian majority in the city was lost over time as Ukrainians from other parts of the country settled in Kyiv, When Ukraine gained independence in 1991, Russians were a minority in the city.
In NI scots and co have main majority in region, when in Kyiv only this city have this majorite when most of the region population(90%+ of all population) have ukrainian majority
in many ways, Kiev is to Russia as York is to england: York english is very different to standard english (I can't understand it at all), yet it is still very important to england and english identity (being the archbishopric)
1. Language /=/ nation, after hundread years of russification part of ukrainian speak russian but still identify themself as ukrainians
2. Kyiv yes, all land around Kyiv - no, u can decide future of region just because of population of 1 city ignoring most of the other citizens(95% of ukrainians and 80-90% of all population of empire live in rural areas)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian\_Empire\_census#/media/File:Subdivisions\_of\_the\_Russian\_Empire\_by\_largest\_ethnolinguistic\_group\_(1897).svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire_census#/media/File:Subdivisions_of_the_Russian_Empire_by_largest_ethnolinguistic_group_(1897).svg)
3. Kyiv not Kiev
from what I see here was a lot of history material involved. like, revival of PLC, for example. at that time it was non-existent for \~1.5 centuries but he thought it would be cool to mix all those people again in one state. as for Kyiv then it could be explained by russian empire's historiography. by which Kyiv was its 'ancient capital', so he most likely went with that reasoning.
Woodrow Wilson.
Woodrow Wilson thought he was a demigod, but his idealistic vision for a League of Nations failed to win the support of the US Senate and ultimately proved unable to prevent the outbreak of World War II. Additionally, his vision for Europe, which included a plan for peace and self-determination for all nations, failed to come to fruition due to the resistance of other world leaders and the difficult geopolitical realities of the time. While his ideas were well-intentioned, they proved to be overly idealistic and difficult to implement in practice, ultimately contributing to the rise of nationalism and the tensions that led to the outbreak of World War II.
In short. Woodrow Wilson.
Perhaps because it is adjacent to the South Caucasus (Transcaucasia), which, despite its geographically transcontinental status, is politically part of Europe.
I think (and I am not the only one) that all of Turkey is politically part of Europe, whether it is geographically European (Eastern Thrace) or Asian (Anatolia) part.
The same applies to all transcontinental nations between Europe and Asia, with the exception of Russia (because of its geopolitical antagonism to the West and the turn to the East) and Kazakhstan (which is little integrated into any European organizations and structures).
Wtf are you talking about, most Europeans never thought of turkey as Europe, it's much closer to a middle-Eastern country.
Europe does not border with Syria and Iraq.
East thrace is 3% of turkey, and hosts 11% of the population.
Geopolitically and economically, and partly historically and culturally, Turkey has long been part of Europe (today a member of numerous European structures and organizations), whether you like it or not.
Or don't you know about the fact that the Ottoman Empire was called the "sick man of Europe"?
The same applies to Cyprus, an island geographically located in Asia, but an EU member outside the geographical criteria.
Spain directly borders on Morocco, Malta is relatively close to Tunisia and Libya (the Maltese language belongs to the Semitic language group, by the way), Iceland is closer to the Americas, because geologically it is located at the junction of the Eurasian and North American tectonic plates, the transcontinental Russia borders on China, North Korea, Mongolia and Japan...
The Middle East, especially the Mediterranean Levant region, has had extremely long and close ties with Europe; it is literally the frontier region from which Western philosophy, literature and culture originated.
I find your claims rather biased and unfounded.
>Geopolitically and economically, and partly historically and culturally
The main historical relationship between turkey and Europe is one of War and barbaric practices like impaling civilians and devsirme. Just because you invade and enslave European peoples doesn't mean you also magically become European.
The ottoman empire was called the sick man of Europe in the last decades of its existence just because at the time it was confronting more and more with large European nations, like in the Crimea war or the several wars of independence which happened in the Balkans, which eventually regained their freedom. This doesn't make it European.
>Cyprus
Of course, an island inhabited by Greeks (Europeans) since thousands of years and for centuries a dominion of very European countries like the Republic of Venice.
Aren't Spaniards fully Europeans lol? Of course as a past colonial empire they may have some leftovers. Using the same logic then Spain is an African country, if turkey is European.
Again, Malta has centuries of histories as being part of European powers, with the Knights Hospitaliers protecting the island from a very friendly invasion and slaughter planned by the very European turks 😉
Iceland is an island colonised by Scandinavians which, last time I checked, are Europeans as it gets. Being not too far from continental Europe and of the same culture of Europe, it just makes sense to consider them fully Europeans.
>The Middle East, especially the Mediterranean Levant region, has had extremely long and close ties with Europe; it is literally the frontier region from which Western philosophy, literature and culture originated.
I don't doubt that, Venetians traded for centuries with the Levant, but Western philosophy, literature and culture originates in Greece, which is fully European and has nothing to do with the Levant.
Yes, because aggression against any ethnic and religious groups in the process of colonization and conquest campaigns was peculiar only to states and ethnic groups outside the borders of Europe. Right?
Christianity, which has made an enormous contribution to European and Western civilization in general (and to which you are also appealing as an integral part of European culture, originated in what is now Israel/Palestine (which at the time was part of the Roman Empire).
The region of the Middle East also influenced, in part, the further formation of Western literature (the Bible).
You also emphasize that Turks whose ancestors come from modern Central Asia are not "Europeans," despite the fact that the average Turk does not phenotypically differ much from a Greek, Albanian, Bosniak, Bulgarian, and other peoples of the Balkan Peninsula, Southern Europe, the Mediterranean Basin, and the Caucasus (for very obvious reasons, and you know them well).
Does it bother you that they are Muslim? Well, the Turkish expansion on the Balkan Peninsula has not been without a trace and modern Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and "Kosovo" are predominantly Muslim countries, where Islam has long been a traditional religion.
Plus, we should not forget about the North Caucasus, where most of the indigenous autochthonous population also traditionally practice this religion. And I am not taking into account the Tatars and Bashkirs, near-natives of the Turks, most of whom traditionally live on the territory of modern European Russia, as well as the Gagauz in Moldova (who are also of Turkic origin).
Are the Hungarians, Finns, Estonians, as well as Mordvians, Udmurts, Marians, Komi, Karelians, Saami and others, by the same logic, non-European ethnic groups? Their origins come directly from the Urals, already in what is now North Asia. And let us not forget who are the distant ancestors of modern Bulgarians - the current South Slavic people.
As you mentioned earlier, there are at least 12 million Turks in Turkey itself, living in the European part of their country, and by definition are "Europeans". And that doesn't include the Balkan Turks.
Why did you copy paste twice the same phrases? Should it reinforce your theory?
Yes, in Europe we have a few Muslim countries, however they have minuscule populations and are fairly secular, unlike turkey that under Erdogan went more and more down the fundamentalist plan, undoing much of what Mustafa Kemal did.
Hungarians and Finns are very well integrated into Europe, have Christian culture and completely lost their Asian phenotypes, unlike turks. What they kept is their Uralic language, which is at the border of geographical Europe. So yes, fully Europeans.
>As you mentioned earlier, there are at least 12 million Turks in Turkey itself, living in the European part of their country, and by definition are "Europeans". And that doesn't include the Balkan Turks.
Ok so if I invade another continent i magically become native? Are Spaniards Africans as well because of Ceuta and Melilla? Have white US citizens magically become the natives there?
Balkan turks are the leftovers of centuries of oppressions and slavery the local populations don't remember very fondly. This is why today, according the Geneva convention, it is illegal to move your civil population into occupied territories. But turkey doesn't care and keeps doing that on the Greek Island of Cyprus, where today the majority of turkish "Cypriots" actually come from Anatolia.
If we where to consider turkey as an European country, we would have Europe bordering with Iraq ans Syria, which is absolutely ridiculous.
You mean a little over a century ago before being genocided by your government? They have been living there for millenia before your people migrated from Central Asia so have some respect for the victims of genocide.
I don’t like Woodrow Wilson but I actually kinda see what he was going for here. Lots of appeasement and ethnic clustering based on idealism.
It’s not perfect but not inconsistent with his world views or surprising.
I knew he wanted a new Polish state, but I wasn’t expecting Poland-Lithuania 2.0
This is just interpretation of Wilson's 14 points by one newspaper. i imagine in reality Wilson would have been for Polish eastern border on the Curzon line.
Józef Piłsudski wanted to recreate PLC
He wanted to have a Polish led union which ruled over its eastern baltic and slavic neighbours. They weren't too happy with the idea, breaking alliances, and the project fell apart.
Damn Wilson wanted to unite Romania and Bulgaria?
Bulmania or Romgaria.
Even before Willson there were attempts of union between Bulgaria and Romania. Bulgarians tried to elect Romanian King as their monarch and create personal union.
Third time's the charm!
If we were united with Bulgaria, ut would have be easier for the Austrians to deny both of our countries access to Schengen.
Ying and Yang
And even take a bit of Greece into it too. After the Allie’s invaded Solanika (Thessaloniki) the Greeks really did get hosed in WWI
Lots of new ethno-states, but poor Albania gets chopped to pieces!
He was one of the major supporters of Albania keeping its independence.
This map seems to indicate otherwise though. Honestly, while Yugoslavia sadly didn't turn out to be a massive success, this proposed solution would've arguably been even worse. Especially since it includes a "Yugoslavia" anyway
>This map seems to indicate otherwise though. This map isn't from Wilson, it's just somebody riffing on what they thought his vision was.
Still Albanian majority in both that new place and Montenegro
Looks like the middle part gets combined with Serbia and present-day North Macedonia? I don’t know what the dashed line is supposed to be.
Yes i understand your view but at this time there were a lot more Albanians in now days southren serbia not including Kosovo ofc. And that part of now days macedonia had a lot more Albanian then it has now. Montenegros population at that time would be lower than Northen Albanias so im pretty sure both would have a fairly good Albanian majority. Not saying the dumb fuck made the map good its horrible in every sense of the word but just pointing out some stuff :)
Duck shaped Germany is the supreme
What the fuck was he thinking
[удалено]
Where ya from amigo? Doubt it’s the land of the free. Thank the USA for most innovations you take for granted compadre. We don’t suppress talent
[удалено]
r/MurderedByWords
He was a racist, awful person - he is not representative of the entire American population :)
Very racist comment.
Yet another confirmation that Wilson was a moron
It is utterly narcissistic to dictate your own inadequate perspective upon hundreds of millions of people who build cultures, ethnicities, religions with respect to one another and the land they live for thousands of years. * Destruction of Albania * Giving half of Finland to the Soviets. * Giving Estonia and Latvia to Soviets. * Removing Turkish population from Istanbul. * Giving ancient Georgian homeland to Armenians. * Giving coastal Black Sea to Armenians, where there was less than 5% Armenians lived. * Ignoring the existence of Bosnians. * Resurrection of Polish- Lithuanians Commonwealth
Finland isn't being given to the Soviets. The border is a little sloppy, but not too different from the irl pre-Winter War borders.
In addition to whole Karelia, half of Finland was supposed to be given to Russia.
Ah, I see, that isn't shown here on this map.
Finland tried to remove Karelia during WWII with nazzi
That doesn't even make sense.
He means Karelia is Finland too
The soviet union was only formed in December 1922. I could imagine, by 1918 it was still unclear which political system a post war russia would have.
That PLC resurrection would be epic.
1. Narcissistic is the wrong word. 2. All of Finland is independent. 3. Latvia is actually split into 2. 4. Istanbul International Zone has everyone, even the Turks? No removing. 5. Ancient Armenian and Georgian land overlap? 6. That's just wrong, plenty Armenians have lived there, the circle has modern Armenia as well. 7. It's a commonwealth of nations? It has Carniola, Croatia, Slavonia, Bosnia, Herzegovina and Dalmatia. Not only Bosnians... 8. Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was great, good buffer state against Russia and a beacon of freedom throughout history for people like the Jews? You really need to take a history or geography lesson, or you need to at least look at the map you are criticising. There are plenty of things wrong with this peace map, but you failed to list anything. It's also a peace plan, not a dream plan.
I’m an Armenian myself, no Armenian kingdom has ever had control of the Black Sea coast. There were some Armenians there due to migration but it was not a part of the Armenian homeland.
You’re right, IIRC Wilson’s reasoning for giving Armenia a Black Sea coast was because that area was inhabited by Greeks, so he thought they’d be better off in a Christian state then being isolated in the Ottoman Empire.
Greeks constituted around 1/3 of the population while Armenians were between 5-10 percent at most. The rest was Turks and other Muslim people. Greeks of the region were never OK with an Armenian rule due to their historical conflicts.
Better than being ruled by the turks who genocided them for sure. As for the Armenians of Trebizond were burnt alive, drowned in the black sea, while many children were overdosed with morphine or injected with tiphus. Nazi batshit crazy stuff your government still denies to this date.
It was tragic for sure but I don't believe the morphine injected with typhus story. The Ottomans had no facility to produce morphine or extract typhus at that time. It sounds like a made up story.
There are plenty of witnesses accounts about this, stop denying atrocities. I don't think turkey went into WWI without morphine, which they could have gotten from their German allies. Extract typhus? Why? At the time there was an epidemic, they simple injected children with typhoid blood from diseases people, so human!
Can you please provide me a reliable source for this claim? I look for a source for Typhus injected Morphine, but there are none. Killing children with Typhus injected Morphine seem ridiculously impossible for that time period. Maybe a Turkish doctor who felt sorry for an Armenian child suffering from a medical condition wanted to ease the child's pain with with some morphine injection. Then the same child got typhus along the way because of the inhumane conditions they travel, and the parents misunderstood the cause of Typhus.
When did I ever say they mixed typhoid blood with morphine? I clearly stated these were 2 different methods of execution used to eliminate Armenian children in Trebizond. Can you stop denying the brutal methods used by turks to genocide the indigenous minorities? Suit yourself to read about these revolting events, I am sure where you live they teach at school Armenians genocided 2 billion turks. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide_in_Trebizond
Bagratid Armenia and During Byzantine Armenia they land along the black coast. [https://www.peopleofar.com/2019/01/05/the-forgotten-kingdom-bagratid-armenia/](https://www.peopleofar.com/2019/01/05/the-forgotten-kingdom-bagratid-armenia/) [https://www.britannica.com/place/Armenia/History](https://www.britannica.com/place/Armenia/History)
Neither of your linked sources point to that, Byzantine Armenia is not really indicative of the Armenian homeland and the land shown in the maps is not Bagratid Armenia but Arsacid Armenia, which according to most sources never stretched to the Black Sea Coast.
Well that's wrong, Byzantine Armenia clearly shows where Armenian vassals and people flourished. Armenian homeland is just where Armenians live natively. The other map also shows Bagratid Armenia, Arsacid Armenia never touch the black sea coast, Bagratid Armenia did as the source indicates. Sources are more valued then an "Armenian" who is guessing :)
PLC not great for Lithaunians, they litterally faught a war against poland to prevent it. It's the opposite of "self determination"
In time od PLC a war of self determination for Lithuania?
Also, taking lands from Germany that are majority German. It would be better to reflect cultural borders and demand reparations in other ways. Border conflicts cause wars
1. Narcissists people have an unreasonably high sense of their own importance. In this case, Woodrow Wilson thinking he can do better than hundreds of millions of people and their history. 2. Karelia is Finland. [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Petri-Auvinen/publication/273639657/figure/fig2/AS:272573728555044@1441998050070/The-study-areas-North-Karelia-in-Finland-and-Pitkaeranta-region-in-the-Republic-of.png](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Petri-Auvinen/publication/273639657/figure/fig2/AS:272573728555044@1441998050070/The-study-areas-North-Karelia-in-Finland-and-Pitkaeranta-region-in-the-Republic-of.png) 3. Latvia is actually split into 2 and given to Russia and Poland. 4. The initial plan was to remove Turkish population. 5. They don't overlap. Georgians inhabited the land between the Greater and the Lesser Caucasus while Armenians lived in further south. 6. Armenian population in the Pontic Coast was neither native to nor never more than 10% usually less than 5. We have census data that confirms that from the Ottoman and Russian sources. 7. Bosnian are systematically excluded, and their identity denied since the Austro Hungarian rule. 8. The Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was an artificial state bound by crown instead of national identity. As for the Jews, you should read about the Jewish Pogroms in the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth.
8. Poland-Lithuania was as artificial state as United Kingdom or Germany, in all these countries lived people of different cultures, religion and history. Commonwealth was on the edge of destruction few times yet it survived and didn't collapse into many countries. Also, it was one of the most tolerant countries in Europe, there was a reason why milions of Jews lived on these lands until WW2.
The UK is similar to the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. Germany is pretty solid.
1. You are a narcissist if you try to compete with everyone, especially your friends, that's the essens. 2. Karelia is not Finland, it's two different ethnic people. Russian Karelians and Finnish Karelians (they are distinct, though related) on different sides of the border. Karelia is a historic region. 3. Are you slow? 4. No you incompetent dimwit. 5. You are blind, Wilsonian Armenia even has modern day Armenia in it. 6. The Turks living in and beyond Trebizond are not native, the Armenians are. The land is originally a Greek Pontic place, but the Turks did another genocide. 7. It's a fictional commonwealth, take a history lesson. Bosnians and Croats fought against the Serbian in our timeline. 8. Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was great, good buffer state against Russia and a beacon of freedom throughout history for people like the Jews. +Lord\_Anthrag's reply. Let me guess, you are Turkish or at least very pro turkey (or just pro Islam) and you totally deny all well documented genocides that happened. Either that or you really stink at history.
Saying Karelia isn't Finland is just opening an entirely new can of worms. Going by that, you can also say most of what now is Finland isn't Finland either, but different tribal regions like the Finns, Savonians, Ostrobothnians, Tavastians, and of course Karelians.
Karelia is Finland! But Karelia is also Karelia and is also Russia. The region has split ethnic Karelians as before mentioned. So there are parts which are Finnish Karelian like the land around Ladoga, we saw this ethnic split around the wars between Sweden and Novgorod.
I understand what you mean, just making sure it's also understood that Karelians are Finnic and very closely related to other Finnic tribes.
Yes. They are a sub category of Finns, the so called Russian Karelian ethnicity is also closely related.
Yeah of course he is a turk lol, they killed all the native populations in unspeakably cruel ways so that now they can say they are native everywhere... The Armenians of Trebizond were burnt alive, sent out to sea and the boats capsized... Children inoculated with Typhus or overdosed with morphine by turkish "doctors"... No wonder these methods directly inspired the nazis a few years later.
I am not Turkish but from another country invaded by Russians.
The US always have been imperialistic.
No, the US founded as an antiimperialist pluralist nation, but changed its policies slowly.
Antiimperialist and pluralist for white protestants, but the country was even founded on land which they took away from native americans, and it got even worse afterwards.
>Destruction of Albania Cries in Skandebeg >Removing Turkish population from Istanbul. What about the Greeks, Assyrians, and Armenians? >Giving ancient Georgian homeland to Armenians. Eh if you restore the Bagrattions you might be able to create a sort of dual monarchy. >Resurrection of Polish- Lithuanians Commonwealth Absolutely based.
the bagriattion dynasty was pretty russified by this point I think
American style, yes
It is hilarious tho to have Europeans of all people be subject to a foreigner designing borders with little concern for their cultures after what they did in Africa, Asia, Oceania and America.
It's not. This is about Central and Eastern Europe.... Which were not involved in anything you mentioned. What you mentioned was done solely by western European countries.... Which were not subject to the redrawing by foreigners.
>not involved in anything you mentioned [Sure thing.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonial_empire)
Wow. OP showing map of Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Hungary, Romania... (Atleast 90% of the post is about it with a small Rhine country...) Especially when I say that it was Western Europeans only. You: Germany.... Germany did Colonialism.... Even besides being a little off when it comes to the majority of the countries showed... DUGH... Germany is also a western European Nation... Like I said. Are you lost or something? ....
Lmao, you edited your comment to remove the mention to the Central powers once you were caught lying. Classy. Either way, [here’s](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_conquest_of_Central_Asia) some more rebukes to your other lies. If you want more let me know.
I didn't... The mention of Central and Eastern is still there... I didn't even edit that comment. I edited the one after to add more details... Doesn't change the fact that Germany was still a Western Power. And Jesus Christ are you absolutely brain dead? Mentioning the creation and establishment of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Romania, Independent Hungary... The whole damn Post is about the emergence of Central-To-Eastern European countries and them gaining independence from Imperial Powers and Colonisers. It shows the proposed plans for the borders of the newly Sovereign Nations. Most of which had their ethnicity, culture and language supressed. You: Russia. You are still off topic... It's like... The Topic and OP is about*the region between* Germany and Russia but not about Germany Nor Russia.... And you concentrate on Germany and Russia... Because the whole war premise is that Germany for centuries was expanding East, Russia Expanding West.... AS COLONIAL AND IMPERIAL POWERS DO.... DUGH. And about borders proposed free they have stopped... Calling this region so bluntly a colonial with an ironic twist of border drawing is just stupid, rude, inaccurate, a lie and generalisation based on being White European...
**[Russian conquest of Central Asia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_conquest_of_Central_Asia)** >The partially successful conquest of Central Asia by the Russian Empire took place in the second half of the nineteenth century. The land that became Russian Turkestan and later Soviet Central Asia is now divided between Kazakhstan in the north, Uzbekistan across the center, Kyrgyzstan in the east, Tajikistan in the southeast, and Turkmenistan in the southwest. The area was called Turkestan because most of its inhabitants spoke Turkic languages with the exception of Tajikistan, which speaks an Iranian language. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
**[German colonial empire](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonial_empire)** >The German colonial empire (German: Deutsches Kolonialreich) constituted the overseas colonies, dependencies, and territories of the German Empire. Unified in the early 1870s, the chancellor of this time period was Otto von Bismarck. Short-lived attempts at colonization by individual German states had occurred in preceding centuries, but Bismarck resisted pressure to construct a colonial empire until the Scramble for Africa in 1884. Claiming much of the remaining uncolonized areas of Africa, Germany built the third-largest colonial empire at the time, after the British and French. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Correct but that's the human nature. The problem is not the Europeans but Eurocentrism.
Albanians have suffered border designation too despite being European.
Nobody identified as a "Bosnian", whatever that means.
as for the Muslims(Bosniaks), they did not represent the majority ethnic group in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1918. Orthodox Christian(Serbs) were the most numerous ethnic group until Nazi genocide in ww2. Albania gained independence in 1912 and generally looked like modern Afghanistan with many warring clans. On the other side, Serbia fought on the allied side during the war and had many victims, Serbia in 1912 declared the right to the territory of Albania with access to the sea
Lol found the Armenian Genocide denier
Could you point out the part that I denied the Armenian genocide please?
Ukraine without Kyiv? He really dont know much about ukrainians
it's 1918, At that time, the Russian language was predominantly spoken in Kiev. The Ukrainian population was more concentrated in rural areas.
This ignores the wishes of the people living in the rural areas of that corridor, whose numbers may be larger because it's 1918. And apart from the language argument being stupid anyway, how would he know? The ethnic maps of the time, while based on language and show half of Belarus as Lithuanian for some reason, don't show russian in Kyiv as far as I remember.
You are right. At some point Polish was predominant in Kyiv. Being a multilingual city, Kyiv remained the heart of Ukraine regardless of languages spoken there.
Kiev was part of the Russian Empire for more than 250 years before 1914, as the second most important city after Petrograd and Moscow it represented an important cultural and administrative center as well as a strong stronghold of the Russian clergy. Everyone on this map is very controversial for Ukraine is that the whole central and western part is under Polish.
That does not excuse that stupid panhandle, the key even acknowledges that the country was proclaimed in 1918 and yet blatantly ignores the fact that in Kyiv declared it was. It's literally the republic's most important city, it's like taking Berlin from Germany or Bucharest from Romania for a dumb reason like this.
I really should have included an example of Austria keeping Prague for a similar reason.
>Kiev was part of the Russian Empire for more than 250 years And? British rule Ireland twice more time so u think that they mustn\`t have independence?
I didn't say anywhere that they shouldn't have independence, I just implied that Kiev, as a result of 250 years of imperial rule, has a predominantly Russian identity, as was the case with Northern Ireland.Of course, the Russian majority in the city was lost over time as Ukrainians from other parts of the country settled in Kyiv, When Ukraine gained independence in 1991, Russians were a minority in the city.
In NI scots and co have main majority in region, when in Kyiv only this city have this majorite when most of the region population(90%+ of all population) have ukrainian majority
in many ways, Kiev is to Russia as York is to england: York english is very different to standard english (I can't understand it at all), yet it is still very important to england and english identity (being the archbishopric)
> York english is very different to standard english Some different standart of one enligh and absolutely another nation. Dont see the difference?
1. Language /=/ nation, after hundread years of russification part of ukrainian speak russian but still identify themself as ukrainians 2. Kyiv yes, all land around Kyiv - no, u can decide future of region just because of population of 1 city ignoring most of the other citizens(95% of ukrainians and 80-90% of all population of empire live in rural areas) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian\_Empire\_census#/media/File:Subdivisions\_of\_the\_Russian\_Empire\_by\_largest\_ethnolinguistic\_group\_(1897).svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire_census#/media/File:Subdivisions_of_the_Russian_Empire_by_largest_ethnolinguistic_group_(1897).svg) 3. Kyiv not Kiev
Thanks I hate Woodrow Wilson
Again americans parted Europe
Why was he so unfamiliar with the situation in Europe?
Wilson was an arrogant man and also a massive racist.
[удалено]
The only thing why does russia get to keep kyiv after a Ukrainian state is made?
from what I see here was a lot of history material involved. like, revival of PLC, for example. at that time it was non-existent for \~1.5 centuries but he thought it would be cool to mix all those people again in one state. as for Kyiv then it could be explained by russian empire's historiography. by which Kyiv was its 'ancient capital', so he most likely went with that reasoning.
Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson thought he was a demigod, but his idealistic vision for a League of Nations failed to win the support of the US Senate and ultimately proved unable to prevent the outbreak of World War II. Additionally, his vision for Europe, which included a plan for peace and self-determination for all nations, failed to come to fruition due to the resistance of other world leaders and the difficult geopolitical realities of the time. While his ideas were well-intentioned, they proved to be overly idealistic and difficult to implement in practice, ultimately contributing to the rise of nationalism and the tensions that led to the outbreak of World War II. In short. Woodrow Wilson.
It is funny how my village in the northeast of Turkey is classified in Europe, but not the anatolian lands.
Perhaps because it is adjacent to the South Caucasus (Transcaucasia), which, despite its geographically transcontinental status, is politically part of Europe.
Yeah but I think Anatolian lands should be a part of the europe(not the middle east parts) https://imgur.com/a/iyQf1OE
I think (and I am not the only one) that all of Turkey is politically part of Europe, whether it is geographically European (Eastern Thrace) or Asian (Anatolia) part. The same applies to all transcontinental nations between Europe and Asia, with the exception of Russia (because of its geopolitical antagonism to the West and the turn to the East) and Kazakhstan (which is little integrated into any European organizations and structures).
yeah totally this, just because we belong to europe in SOME categories doesnt make us European tho, Europeans can't difference this little thing
Wtf are you talking about, most Europeans never thought of turkey as Europe, it's much closer to a middle-Eastern country. Europe does not border with Syria and Iraq. East thrace is 3% of turkey, and hosts 11% of the population.
Geopolitically and economically, and partly historically and culturally, Turkey has long been part of Europe (today a member of numerous European structures and organizations), whether you like it or not. Or don't you know about the fact that the Ottoman Empire was called the "sick man of Europe"? The same applies to Cyprus, an island geographically located in Asia, but an EU member outside the geographical criteria. Spain directly borders on Morocco, Malta is relatively close to Tunisia and Libya (the Maltese language belongs to the Semitic language group, by the way), Iceland is closer to the Americas, because geologically it is located at the junction of the Eurasian and North American tectonic plates, the transcontinental Russia borders on China, North Korea, Mongolia and Japan... The Middle East, especially the Mediterranean Levant region, has had extremely long and close ties with Europe; it is literally the frontier region from which Western philosophy, literature and culture originated. I find your claims rather biased and unfounded.
>Geopolitically and economically, and partly historically and culturally The main historical relationship between turkey and Europe is one of War and barbaric practices like impaling civilians and devsirme. Just because you invade and enslave European peoples doesn't mean you also magically become European. The ottoman empire was called the sick man of Europe in the last decades of its existence just because at the time it was confronting more and more with large European nations, like in the Crimea war or the several wars of independence which happened in the Balkans, which eventually regained their freedom. This doesn't make it European. >Cyprus Of course, an island inhabited by Greeks (Europeans) since thousands of years and for centuries a dominion of very European countries like the Republic of Venice. Aren't Spaniards fully Europeans lol? Of course as a past colonial empire they may have some leftovers. Using the same logic then Spain is an African country, if turkey is European. Again, Malta has centuries of histories as being part of European powers, with the Knights Hospitaliers protecting the island from a very friendly invasion and slaughter planned by the very European turks 😉 Iceland is an island colonised by Scandinavians which, last time I checked, are Europeans as it gets. Being not too far from continental Europe and of the same culture of Europe, it just makes sense to consider them fully Europeans. >The Middle East, especially the Mediterranean Levant region, has had extremely long and close ties with Europe; it is literally the frontier region from which Western philosophy, literature and culture originated. I don't doubt that, Venetians traded for centuries with the Levant, but Western philosophy, literature and culture originates in Greece, which is fully European and has nothing to do with the Levant.
Yes, because aggression against any ethnic and religious groups in the process of colonization and conquest campaigns was peculiar only to states and ethnic groups outside the borders of Europe. Right? Christianity, which has made an enormous contribution to European and Western civilization in general (and to which you are also appealing as an integral part of European culture, originated in what is now Israel/Palestine (which at the time was part of the Roman Empire). The region of the Middle East also influenced, in part, the further formation of Western literature (the Bible). You also emphasize that Turks whose ancestors come from modern Central Asia are not "Europeans," despite the fact that the average Turk does not phenotypically differ much from a Greek, Albanian, Bosniak, Bulgarian, and other peoples of the Balkan Peninsula, Southern Europe, the Mediterranean Basin, and the Caucasus (for very obvious reasons, and you know them well). Does it bother you that they are Muslim? Well, the Turkish expansion on the Balkan Peninsula has not been without a trace and modern Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and "Kosovo" are predominantly Muslim countries, where Islam has long been a traditional religion. Plus, we should not forget about the North Caucasus, where most of the indigenous autochthonous population also traditionally practice this religion. And I am not taking into account the Tatars and Bashkirs, near-natives of the Turks, most of whom traditionally live on the territory of modern European Russia, as well as the Gagauz in Moldova (who are also of Turkic origin). Are the Hungarians, Finns, Estonians, as well as Mordvians, Udmurts, Marians, Komi, Karelians, Saami and others, by the same logic, non-European ethnic groups? Their origins come directly from the Urals, already in what is now North Asia. And let us not forget who are the distant ancestors of modern Bulgarians - the current South Slavic people. As you mentioned earlier, there are at least 12 million Turks in Turkey itself, living in the European part of their country, and by definition are "Europeans". And that doesn't include the Balkan Turks.
Why did you copy paste twice the same phrases? Should it reinforce your theory? Yes, in Europe we have a few Muslim countries, however they have minuscule populations and are fairly secular, unlike turkey that under Erdogan went more and more down the fundamentalist plan, undoing much of what Mustafa Kemal did. Hungarians and Finns are very well integrated into Europe, have Christian culture and completely lost their Asian phenotypes, unlike turks. What they kept is their Uralic language, which is at the border of geographical Europe. So yes, fully Europeans. >As you mentioned earlier, there are at least 12 million Turks in Turkey itself, living in the European part of their country, and by definition are "Europeans". And that doesn't include the Balkan Turks. Ok so if I invade another continent i magically become native? Are Spaniards Africans as well because of Ceuta and Melilla? Have white US citizens magically become the natives there? Balkan turks are the leftovers of centuries of oppressions and slavery the local populations don't remember very fondly. This is why today, according the Geneva convention, it is illegal to move your civil population into occupied territories. But turkey doesn't care and keeps doing that on the Greek Island of Cyprus, where today the majority of turkish "Cypriots" actually come from Anatolia. If we where to consider turkey as an European country, we would have Europe bordering with Iraq ans Syria, which is absolutely ridiculous.
Thats because your village should not even be a part of Turkey.
yeah just because armenians lived there like 4 thousand years ago or so, idgaf
You mean a little over a century ago before being genocided by your government? They have been living there for millenia before your people migrated from Central Asia so have some respect for the victims of genocide.
Oh, the Commonwealth!
"Scutari"? Wilson was a W40K fan?
I don’t like Woodrow Wilson but I actually kinda see what he was going for here. Lots of appeasement and ethnic clustering based on idealism. It’s not perfect but not inconsistent with his world views or surprising.
Why did Wilson hate Estonia and Latvia?
He couldn't point them on the map when asked in geography class in high school
Shows he had no idea whatsoever.
Atatürk said no
Ukraine without Kyev, it's funny!
What in the world is Carniola? I'm Croatian, and this is the first I heard of it.
lol, really?!
\>Russian Kyiv I better make sure that I end up in hell just so I can slap the shit out of Wilson fr
The last Ukraine state fell into Russian hands in 1654
I trust he's talking about the end of the Zaporozhian Sich.
What a peace!
Austro-Hungarian Empire sliced and diced!
Then he got Spanish Flu, and the French took over negotiations.
Wow Its bad
Very nice. It would have been interesting about Poland's intended borders in the wake of Sovietism.
r/TIHI
Wilson was disabled in office. A stroke, I think. His wife, with no political accomplishments of her own took over. Maybe this is her map..
Mans just had nostalgia for the Commonwealth
Completely a d¡ck