Question for history buffs

[Riprorin]

What countries, if any, have voluntarily given back land that was acquired by conquest?

Thanks.

 

[ClueLis]

Britain and France right off the top of my head.

 

[Gyrene]

Voluntarily as in no physical fighting, or voluntarily as in they conquered and then just out of the blue gave it back?

 

[spanky]

England gave hk back to china. i dunno the details of it tho.

 

[Walleye]

isreal.

 

[Walleye]

Originally posted by: spanky
England gave hk back to china. i dunno the details of it tho.

er.. they were forced to give it back, because they only aquired it through a 99 year lease from china.

 

[Czar]

all the old colonial powers

 

[ClueLis]

Originally posted by: spanky
England gave hk back to china. i dunno the details of it tho.

That was different. When they won the Opium wars, they gained Hong Kong on a 99 year "lease" and then returned it to China as promised.

I was more thinking of Canada, Australia and much of Africa.

Edit: Damn beat to it.

 

[spanky]

Originally posted by: Walleye

Originally posted by: spanky
England gave hk back to china. i dunno the details of it tho.

er.. they were forced to give it back, because they only aquired it through a 99 year lease from china.

see... i told u i didn't know the details

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: dtyn
Voluntarily as in no physical fighting, or voluntarily as in they conquered and then just out of the blue gave it back?

They gave it back voluntarily with no physical fighting.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: ClueLis
Britain and France right off the top of my head.

What land did France and Britain voluntarily give back?

 

[ClueLis]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ClueLis
Britain and France right off the top of my head.

What land did France and Britain voluntarily give back?

I listed Britain above, and France returned its territories in Africa as well.

 

[Riprorin]

I believe that France was driven out of Haiti.

Why did they leave their African colonies?

 

[ClueLis]

They were too much to manage.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Britain gave Trinidad & Tobago independence n 1835 or 1834.. not sure. I think they did that with most of the West Indies.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: ClueLis
They were too much to manage.

Were they too hard to manage because of internal rebellion?

 

[ClueLis]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ClueLis
They were too much to manage.

Were they too hard to manage because of internal rebellion?

No After WWII, it was simply clear that neither Britain nor France had enough finances to hold onto their territories, so they gave them up.

Britain also gave up control of the Middle East, although that DID have some degree of rebellion.

 

[GalvanizedYankee]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
Britain gave Trinidad & Tobago independence n 1835 or 1834.. not sure. I think they did that with most of the West Indies.

At the same time,1834, Britan outlawed all forms of slave trade/breeding.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: galvanizedyankee

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
Britain gave Trinidad & Tobago independence n 1835 or 1834.. not sure. I think they did that with most of the West Indies.

At the same time,1834, Britan outlawed all forms of slave trade/breeding.

Britain outlawed the slave trade in 1807.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: ClueLis

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: ClueLis
They were too much to manage.

Were they too hard to manage because of internal rebellion?

No After WWII, it was simply clear that neither Britain nor France had enough finances to hold onto their territories, so they gave them up.

Britain also gave up control of the Middle East, although that DID have some degree of rebellion.

They were loss leaders anyway. Most of the territory that England and France held at that point were money losers. Face it, most of Africa isn't even able to feed itself without help from NA, SA and Europe. The colonial period expansionism was based on the desire to control the world, it was like a giant game of Risk. All the players took turns grabbing countries looking to create the biggest empire. WW2 changed all that. The major combatants were facing huge war debts and were spending a fortune propping up countries that provided nothing but more debt. Face it, if somebody wanted to give you Ethiopia or Somalia free of charge, would you take it? The powers got smart and began looking at those countries like a business would look at divisions that were losing money. They were forced to cut them loose for primarily financial reasons.

 

[Tom]

Well, the United States did so, with the caveat that we didn't have any intention of keeping the lands "conquered" in WW2, but rather removing troublesome governments and/or leaders from power.

For instance we gave Vichy France back to the French, we even brought them along with us so they could have it without delay.

 

Oops! Double post!

 

No, the British abolished slave trade in 1807, but slaves remained enslaved. Slavery was actually abolished in 1833 in all British colonies.

"They were loss leaders anyway. Most of the territory that England and France held at that point were money losers."

Not true! Africa is one of the richest in natural resources. The land has gold (the coast of Ghana), Ivory (Ivory Coast), Diamond (South Africa), petroleum (Nigeria), and other minerals. If anything, you'll hear African leaders complain about their resources having been exploited by the colonisers; hence, they use these as excuses for the state of the continent at the moment. Perhaps the African people do not know how to utilise resources and maximise output, but the land has never been a barren one.

 

[yllus]

Would you count the United States and Japan at the end of World War II? That land, conquered through a show of nuclear force, was then allowed to remain and grow under US oversight.

 

Ivory cost and sierra leone?