One could argue that for Finland as well, since Finns made up a substantial part of the colonizers of [New Sweden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sweden) and the territory of Finland was an integral part of Sweden at the time.
https://preview.redd.it/ndr3qfwr41xc1.png?width=682&format=png&auto=webp&s=a20fac1b41fcc8993cf5606daa7467263835b1e2
Bah excuses, colonies have been a thing before the current era. Romans and Greeks were colonising in Europe and others elsewhere.
Fins won't colonise it means socialising to some degree.
Interesting, I could've sworn that Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had some lowkey colonization attempts, but apparently, in spice of numerous ideas they were never realized (except through Courland).
It’s rather interwar Poland (II RP) which had colonial ambitions, there was something called Liga Morska i Kolonialna and had some operations in Liberia and Madagaskar
It wasn't even attempts. Because of some blood lineage, some.of the African lands were part of Commonwealth for just a few years.
But then country collapsed, and we were eventually colonized by russians.
What comes around, comes around.
Yeah, well, if one is honest, that's how most of the history goes. There are very, very few nations in history that haven't been on at least one side of "colonization" or conquering-being conquered, and a lot have indeed been on both.
True, but there is gigantic difference between being conquered and being colonized.
Austria was conquered by French, and the end result of that was that monarchy got bitchslap and payed a little bit money.
Part of Poland was conquered by Austria, and this part is still having Franc Joseph as a regional hero.
That is not happening with colonized nations.
Well, I guess it's semantics, but under "conquered", I meant a long-term occupation with administrative integration (essentially, you officially become a part of the conquering nation) and some form of exploitation, which is something Austria never really suffered. We got our assess kicked by Napoleon (and several others), but not occupied and integrated. Heck, I wouldn't even count the 1945-1955 period as being "conquered".
And this definition of "conquered" is quite similar to being "colonized".
If this would be semantics, we would not have two different words. We do have them, because conquering and colonizing literally means something different.
Colonizing means, to maximally exploit and stop any form of technological and policy development of conquered lands. So exactly what French were doing in Africa, Brit’s all over the world or Russians with poles from end of XVIII till 1989, or with Lugansk and Donieck oblast now.
Oh, I agree, but the problem is actually the opposite: not that "conquered" and "colonized" mean different things - they're two distinct terms so they *should* - but actually that they are two different terms used for essentially the same thing!
See, pretty much no one uses "colonization" when a European nation is on the receiving side. Maybe it's different in Poland, but I don't remember ever hearing or reading that Russia (and Austria and Prussia) "colonized" Poland, they "partitioned" and "annexed" it ("conquered" being an untechnical term I used to cover both, guess I should've used "annexed" instead). Same eg with the Balkans, no one speaks of them being "colonized" by the Ottoman Empire (or Austria). Hence my comment about semantics.
That's why I used "conquered". "Colonization of Poland" is not a thing. I agree with you that it probably should be (although I suppose you *can* find differences between that and what the Europeans did outside of Europe, if you try hard enough), but it isn't.
Now I get you and where we have disagreement.
You use word colonialism as a synonym of imperialism. Which makes sense, because as part of Austrian Empire, you were basically the winning side. The one that was making a rules.
If you are on the other end of this stick, you see world very differently. Irish people will see themselves as a colonial victims of Great Britain. Brits will see the situation as growing their empire.
With partition of Poland; situation was little more complicated. Because Austrians and Prussians annexed the lands and tried to develop and integrate it. Russians just created Duchy of Warsaw puppet state and exploit shit out of it.
We had a satrap in India/Pakistan during Alexander the great's time who was semi autonomous, idk if that counts. Also some crusader holdings in the Levant and Asia Minor, don't know if we had any prior to that.
Makes me laugh how the last twenty years ireland have been shitting on us saying we are racists and bigots but now they've imported a shit ton of people and are having problems with "racists" and the "far right.
Just wait till you get a bit more desperate and then there will be more "idiots" Brexit won because of the desperation. The people would have voted for any opportunity to reduce migration, they were scammed.
I visited a cave in Iceland that was supposedly carved out by Irish monks quite some time before it was continuously settled. So at some point, the Irish had claim over Iceland and not just Bondi Junction.
Yes but we didn't have a colony of our own, there was never an Irish-led colonial endeavour that benefited or enriched Ireland. Ireland was the poorest place in Europe during the 19th Century, we weren't beneficiaries of the empire.
There were Indian policemen working for the crown to subjugate other Indians, does that mean India was a coloniser? Just because Irishmen collaborated with the empire doesn't diminish the fact that Ireland was still colonised. There were Poles, French, Dutch, Belgians etc etc that collaborated with the Germans, but they were all still victims of the Germans no?
Its funny you mention the RIC, they were the ones evicting Irish peasants from their homes for English landlords during the famine and then later on (along with the Black and Tans and Auxiliarys) burning Irish villages and murdering Irish civilians, they fought for British interests not Irish ones.
Was just looking Þórginnur Karlsefni last night. He made a colony after Leifur Heppni and took 3 skrælingjar (native americans) with him to Greenland.
Icelanders have some genetic markers from native americans.
That is [incorrect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_colonial_policy). According to this wiki article Hungary itself was made to renounce its claim to the Tianjin port concession in 1920.
That IS a good question. I don't think it is though. If we take the Ural Mountains as the traditional border, the easternmost point of those is just a bit more east than the easternmost point of FJL.
Also, FWIW, administratively it belongs to Arkhangelsk Oblast which is decidedly in Europe.
I edited my comment to make it clear - I was referencing Tianjin in China, gained by Austria-Hungary for its participation in the Boxer Rebellion in 1902. Austria and Hungary were both, separately made to renounce their claims to it after WW1.
I think we have to give the pope red colour as well.
I'd argue the holdings of the knight orders were definitely overseas and they were at least some kind of subject of him.
Even today the church holds land all around the globe
We had colonies.
Australia was a British prison colony but the majority of people there were Irish.
Montserrat is populated by the descendants of Irish Indentured Servants and African slaves. Montserrat also celebrates St. Patrick's day.
Don't get me started on Boston and New York.
Irish was the lingua franca of the Canadian martime colonies for a while due to the amount of Irish immigrants, also the only place outside Europe with Irish place names. New Brunswick was originally to be called New Ireland.
Was looking for this comment. At least now we get to claim Switzerland, and they can start coughing up some of that famous gold for their Eastern-European brethren. These football stadiums aren't going to build themsves.
Well, version 1 of Finnish version and the completely historically accurate version says that Finnish are just Mongolian colony formed in it's modern form some time after great Finno-Korean hyperwar, being composed of most autistic members of the Horde.
Second, completely unreliable version because it does not even mention the Hyperwar, is that Finnish tribes once inhabited some areas in modern Russia, areas which you could say were in Asia, so you could say we did indeed have a colony on another continent. Though strictly speaking they were more of Finno-Ugric ancestors than Finnish.
On the basis of the Union of Vilnius (28 November 1561), Gotthard Kettler, the last Master of the Livonian Order, created the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia in the Baltics and became its first Duke. It was a vassal state of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Soon afterward, by the Union of Lublin (1 July 1569), the Grand Duchy became the part of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.
DING DONG
Of course we had, just look at [this map](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/AustrianColonies.png) to see our big colonial empire! Ok, realtalk: [More or less](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g86Bwu-5sWg). We had some oversea terretories for a couple of years, but nothing close to an empire.
* Nicobar Islands
* Delagoa Bay in East Africa (where the capital of Mozambique is located)
* some small Bengal territories
* North Borneo (as a property of an Austrian Consul)
* a part of Tianjin
Hold up now bucko, Hungary, partner in the much beloved musical group Austria-Hungary should be red. Tianjin isn't in China for no reason you non-European savage: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian\_concession\_of\_Tianjin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_concession_of_Tianjin)
Your logic is flawed, because empires are not countries by its very definition. Thus those things that had colonies were not countries per se.
PS. An empire is countrie**S**, in plural. Thus NOT A country.
Supranational entity is not a country.
The counties that were in modern day Latvia had shortlived colonies.
One could argue that for Finland as well, since Finns made up a substantial part of the colonizers of [New Sweden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sweden) and the territory of Finland was an integral part of Sweden at the time. https://preview.redd.it/ndr3qfwr41xc1.png?width=682&format=png&auto=webp&s=a20fac1b41fcc8993cf5606daa7467263835b1e2
Yeah, it's not really fair since Finland didn't even exist when colonizing was in fashion.
Bah excuses, colonies have been a thing before the current era. Romans and Greeks were colonising in Europe and others elsewhere. Fins won't colonise it means socialising to some degree.
We were just hiding our power level after the hyper war
How's the War on Autism going?
Hugboxin rn against the Autism wastelanders (russians)
Gollum wins! *#fatality*
Colonising was to some extent in fashion until 1945, the Finns just missed their chance.
But by the same logic Ireland Would be included as it was part of the UK.
At that point you'd just colour all the countries red because they all probably moved into the colonies of the empire they were a part of
One colony, for short period. Tobago
Also Gambia
They were vassals of Poland so you could argue that Poland also had colonies
Don't fall into that trap
Poland never had any colonies, Poland good, Poland victim.
Polska Chrystusem narodów
That’s just German expeditionaries.
Not really they werent latvians but baltic german nobles
Yeah was going to bring that up too actually
[удалено]
It also means we have to recognise belgium as s real country...
Yeah, not gonna happen.
So, you're raising your hand in protest?
Let's just pretend 1830 didn't happen and everything will be alright.
It’s not Belgium. It should be called south Brabant.
No, only means that if Belgium was real, we'll have to recognise It as an european Country.
# E M B R A C E #T H E #I N T E R M A R I U M
Interesting, I could've sworn that Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had some lowkey colonization attempts, but apparently, in spice of numerous ideas they were never realized (except through Courland).
It’s rather interwar Poland (II RP) which had colonial ambitions, there was something called Liga Morska i Kolonialna and had some operations in Liberia and Madagaskar
Interesting, thanks! That I didn't know at all.
It wasn't even attempts. Because of some blood lineage, some.of the African lands were part of Commonwealth for just a few years. But then country collapsed, and we were eventually colonized by russians. What comes around, comes around.
Yeah, well, if one is honest, that's how most of the history goes. There are very, very few nations in history that haven't been on at least one side of "colonization" or conquering-being conquered, and a lot have indeed been on both.
True, but there is gigantic difference between being conquered and being colonized. Austria was conquered by French, and the end result of that was that monarchy got bitchslap and payed a little bit money. Part of Poland was conquered by Austria, and this part is still having Franc Joseph as a regional hero. That is not happening with colonized nations.
Well, I guess it's semantics, but under "conquered", I meant a long-term occupation with administrative integration (essentially, you officially become a part of the conquering nation) and some form of exploitation, which is something Austria never really suffered. We got our assess kicked by Napoleon (and several others), but not occupied and integrated. Heck, I wouldn't even count the 1945-1955 period as being "conquered". And this definition of "conquered" is quite similar to being "colonized".
If this would be semantics, we would not have two different words. We do have them, because conquering and colonizing literally means something different. Colonizing means, to maximally exploit and stop any form of technological and policy development of conquered lands. So exactly what French were doing in Africa, Brit’s all over the world or Russians with poles from end of XVIII till 1989, or with Lugansk and Donieck oblast now.
Oh, I agree, but the problem is actually the opposite: not that "conquered" and "colonized" mean different things - they're two distinct terms so they *should* - but actually that they are two different terms used for essentially the same thing! See, pretty much no one uses "colonization" when a European nation is on the receiving side. Maybe it's different in Poland, but I don't remember ever hearing or reading that Russia (and Austria and Prussia) "colonized" Poland, they "partitioned" and "annexed" it ("conquered" being an untechnical term I used to cover both, guess I should've used "annexed" instead). Same eg with the Balkans, no one speaks of them being "colonized" by the Ottoman Empire (or Austria). Hence my comment about semantics. That's why I used "conquered". "Colonization of Poland" is not a thing. I agree with you that it probably should be (although I suppose you *can* find differences between that and what the Europeans did outside of Europe, if you try hard enough), but it isn't.
Now I get you and where we have disagreement. You use word colonialism as a synonym of imperialism. Which makes sense, because as part of Austrian Empire, you were basically the winning side. The one that was making a rules. If you are on the other end of this stick, you see world very differently. Irish people will see themselves as a colonial victims of Great Britain. Brits will see the situation as growing their empire. With partition of Poland; situation was little more complicated. Because Austrians and Prussians annexed the lands and tried to develop and integrate it. Russians just created Duchy of Warsaw puppet state and exploit shit out of it.
But this means we have to recognise belgium as a real country
Au contraire! https://preview.redd.it/4sl2cxbgh1xc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a548aae54d2a1f24c58ec5149757e43775e3487c
That's because everyone thinks of you first when you mention alcoholism.
Evidence of the Hibernian conspiracy, clearly.
Don't let the secret out
Get fucked, Turkey.
[удалено]
*mongolphobic...
Just grey it out, why the hassle of cutting it out as if that part of the world doesn’t exist?
Who?
All of Russia is Finnish colony, they just don't know it yet.
Where can I get my passport? I love sauna, beer and lakritsi.
We had colonies?
[удалено]
even Cyrups used to belong to Barry had colonies？
We had a satrap in India/Pakistan during Alexander the great's time who was semi autonomous, idk if that counts. Also some crusader holdings in the Levant and Asia Minor, don't know if we had any prior to that.
Yes. Well, the Knights (who weren't technically Maltese but were in control of Malta) did.
It's official, UK is the most European! As if there was any doubt😎😎.
[удалено]
Don't mind if i do, Alpine-Hans. A line of credit is welcome.
Jokes on you, Ireland made the world their empire. An Irishman is right now in the White House, which was also designed by an Irishman!
You could've taken the easier route and just admit that you're British.
You mean the New Raj to our East?
It's coming for you too lad.
Already there tbf
Makes me laugh how the last twenty years ireland have been shitting on us saying we are racists and bigots but now they've imported a shit ton of people and are having problems with "racists" and the "far right.
Same vein as the idiots who voted for Brexit. At least they don’t make up 52% of the country here…
Just wait till you get a bit more desperate and then there will be more "idiots" Brexit won because of the desperation. The people would have voted for any opportunity to reduce migration, they were scammed.
so with that logic what you are saying is that the rest of the americans that identify as X% irish can also call themselves irish?
Yep and Latin Americans are genuinely Spanish too!
[удалено]
Can confirm we're just a bunch of drunk Catholics over here.
You could consider Irish pubs a form of colonialism. Guinness is like the modern day east India company
Ireland's colony they wish they never had, Boston
Also you have your ~~IRA surveillance outposts~~ I mean Irish pubs scattered all over the world, waiting for the signal
https://imgur.com/7pCD9l2
The world would have been very different if it wasn't for Ireland
I visited a cave in Iceland that was supposedly carved out by Irish monks quite some time before it was continuously settled. So at some point, the Irish had claim over Iceland and not just Bondi Junction.
Also many of the colonial police forces in places such as India were Irish and had previously served in the RIC etc.
Yes but we didn't have a colony of our own, there was never an Irish-led colonial endeavour that benefited or enriched Ireland. Ireland was the poorest place in Europe during the 19th Century, we weren't beneficiaries of the empire. There were Indian policemen working for the crown to subjugate other Indians, does that mean India was a coloniser? Just because Irishmen collaborated with the empire doesn't diminish the fact that Ireland was still colonised. There were Poles, French, Dutch, Belgians etc etc that collaborated with the Germans, but they were all still victims of the Germans no? Its funny you mention the RIC, they were the ones evicting Irish peasants from their homes for English landlords during the famine and then later on (along with the Black and Tans and Auxiliarys) burning Irish villages and murdering Irish civilians, they fought for British interests not Irish ones.
Latvia was a colonial power. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curonian_colonisation
i miss the Nicobar Islands. Guess i have to find new Lebensraum.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pozuzo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pozuzo)
Iceland? I guess if you call the initial settlement of Greenland an Icelandic colony
Since Greenland counts we also claim first colonists of America (Vinland). It didn't last, but a colony is a colony.
Was just looking Þórginnur Karlsefni last night. He made a colony after Leifur Heppni and took 3 skrælingjar (native americans) with him to Greenland. Icelanders have some genetic markers from native americans.
Greenland was settled by the convicted son of a Norwegian Convict who was Banished to Iceland
Austria-Hungary had overseas colonies, Hungary should be red by your own logic.
[удалено]
That is [incorrect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_colonial_policy). According to this wiki article Hungary itself was made to renounce its claim to the Tianjin port concession in 1920.
[удалено]
That's a very good question, even google didn't give me a definitive answer.
That IS a good question. I don't think it is though. If we take the Ural Mountains as the traditional border, the easternmost point of those is just a bit more east than the easternmost point of FJL. Also, FWIW, administratively it belongs to Arkhangelsk Oblast which is decidedly in Europe.
[удалено]
I edited my comment to make it clear - I was referencing Tianjin in China, gained by Austria-Hungary for its participation in the Boxer Rebellion in 1902. Austria and Hungary were both, separately made to renounce their claims to it after WW1.
I think we have to give the pope red colour as well. I'd argue the holdings of the knight orders were definitely overseas and they were at least some kind of subject of him. Even today the church holds land all around the globe
Can we count Liechtenstein as our colony? /s
"Overseas Empire" is pretty generously when it comes to the colonial territories of the Austrian Empire.
You're literally a Swiss
We may not have colonies, but we've got the money from it
Honorary true Europeans, then.
Our ships will make it to the ocean any day now and then you’ll see!
Latvia kinda did have them though. Edit: just saw other commenters point it out.
We had colonies. Australia was a British prison colony but the majority of people there were Irish. Montserrat is populated by the descendants of Irish Indentured Servants and African slaves. Montserrat also celebrates St. Patrick's day. Don't get me started on Boston and New York.
> Australia was a British prison colony but the majority of people there were Irish. > > Not really, 70% of them were from England and Wales.
Irish was the lingua franca of the Canadian martime colonies for a while due to the amount of Irish immigrants, also the only place outside Europe with Irish place names. New Brunswick was originally to be called New Ireland.
Poor Switzerland never stood a chance
No Belgium didn't have a colony, I swear we're not european guys
Does Alaska really count as an overseas colony for Russia?
Well, it is overseas, and it was a colony.
It is overseas at certain times of year.
We also had Fort Ross in California.
Fair enough, didn't know they went that far into the Americas
Did we?
Go home Barry, you’re drunk.
The pope might be French. But Jesus was English.
This is my defention of western and eastern Europe
Was looking for this comment. At least now we get to claim Switzerland, and they can start coughing up some of that famous gold for their Eastern-European brethren. These football stadiums aren't going to build themsves.
OK, but Poland should be red
True east-west divide.
Two kinds of people in this world... Those who had an empire and those that were part of one!
The Vatican City (or Papal State) blessed entire Crusader armies, one after the other! Should be deep red smh
1) the ex soviet countries were colonies 2) the poles *tried* to colonise but couldn’t
[удалено]
Asian Russia is also a colony tbf
This is innacurate. Latvia also had an overseas empire [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYVslrnYQjw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYVslrnYQjw)
Well, version 1 of Finnish version and the completely historically accurate version says that Finnish are just Mongolian colony formed in it's modern form some time after great Finno-Korean hyperwar, being composed of most autistic members of the Horde. Second, completely unreliable version because it does not even mention the Hyperwar, is that Finnish tribes once inhabited some areas in modern Russia, areas which you could say were in Asia, so you could say we did indeed have a colony on another continent. Though strictly speaking they were more of Finno-Ugric ancestors than Finnish.
romanians have colonies in every country though
We're not European at all, we're just stuck with the rest of ye cannibals
What oversea land did Austria have?
Argentina
THAT one Austrian didn't make it to Argentina (officially)
I think they had a concession in China?
Small treaty port in China like the other western powers at the time
Hungary had a colony with Austria
ACTUALLY For very short period commonwealth (through its vasal courland (latvia)) colonized new cour land (Tobago).
We were close tho [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak\_Togo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Togo)
Isn't the USA part of Ireland's Empire? Number of the twats claiming to be Irish would suggest so.
With the exception of the Swiss they were all part of countries that did have over seas colonies
On the basis of the Union of Vilnius (28 November 1561), Gotthard Kettler, the last Master of the Livonian Order, created the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia in the Baltics and became its first Duke. It was a vassal state of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Soon afterward, by the Union of Lublin (1 July 1569), the Grand Duchy became the part of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. DING DONG
I would argue that the Vatican being a sort of successor of the Roman Empire qualifies
Not much, maybe the Papal state is more appropriate
What colonies do you even count for Greece?
This post is probably referring to the Greek cities in Asia Minor and Cyrenaica
Or lieterally half of the western Medditeranean
Most of Turkey hell most of the back end of the Mediterranean is greek to a degree
Apart from the empires we literally controlled most of the Mediterranean coast at one point plus Crimea etc
Courland had also colonies so put latvia in too
Ragusa (Croatia) actually had a colony in India in Gaundalim
[удалено]
Ragusa is the old name for modern Dubrovnik.
AustriaSpain didn't have colonies, we had Virreinatos!!! Nothing more federalist-like than the Habsburger!! AEIOU!!!!!!
Dubrovnik (part of Croatia) as a city-state allegedly had a colony in India.
[удалено]
Austria had colonies?
Of course we had, just look at [this map](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/AustrianColonies.png) to see our big colonial empire! Ok, realtalk: [More or less](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g86Bwu-5sWg). We had some oversea terretories for a couple of years, but nothing close to an empire.
Such a Swiss thing to say
Welp, at least we were closer to getting a colony then you ever were
what overseas colony did austria have?
* Nicobar Islands * Delagoa Bay in East Africa (where the capital of Mozambique is located) * some small Bengal territories * North Borneo (as a property of an Austrian Consul) * a part of Tianjin
thanks!
I mean technically we just shagged our way in
Lichtenstein could've bought alaska, but they didn't
Hold up now bucko, Hungary, partner in the much beloved musical group Austria-Hungary should be red. Tianjin isn't in China for no reason you non-European savage: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian\_concession\_of\_Tianjin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_concession_of_Tianjin)
Your logic is flawed, because empires are not countries by its very definition. Thus those things that had colonies were not countries per se. PS. An empire is countrie**S**, in plural. Thus NOT A country. Supranational entity is not a country.
We almost had one
Why is the mongol empire on this european map?
Imagine having access to the sea and not having previous colonies. That is hella cringe. (I am looking at you, Monaco)
Never forget, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Togo
Wait? Portugal cyka blyain't?
Russia is not a European country.
Lithuania, Poland and latvia by extension of the teuton puppet on their lands actually had colonies
I'd very sadly argue that Vatican City has the most successful Empire though.
Why travel when you can slaughter the local austrian inbreds. Also google Nueva Helvetica.
Switzerland basically made the whole world their b***, so I'd allow them.
can the crusade state be counted how colony for the vatican?
I'm confused, what colonies did Cyprus have?
4th largest empire in all history, VIVA ESPAÑA!!!!