Guantanamo Bay doesn't technically fit the category of this video, because the US doesn't claim it to be their territory. It's LEASED land (since 1903), at least to the US. (Cuba considers it occupied territory.) The US sends a check for the rent every year; since the revolution the Cubans have never cashed it.
It's not a dispute about ownership, but it's still a dispute about control of that territory. "When Cuba is free", lol. You mean when the Empire of the USA falls? And "a lot of cash"? 4k $ a year is peanuts for a country, even one with the size and resources of Cuba.
@@waifubreaks1572 For a person? Sure. I said for a country. For a country is nothing. Even for a city. Where I live, many people make around 100 dollars a month. 20k is peanuts even for my (medium size) city's annual spending. The treaty is fraudulent, and the only reason they're still there, is because they don't give a damn. Take the time and look into it.
There is a bigger territorial dispute that is coming. The USA (and most European countries) claim that the northwest passage is international waters, whereas Canada claims it is part of their internal waterways. Due to whatever political agenda you subscribe to, the area is starting to become safely navigable for large container ships. It is a big deal as the USA (and Europe) will both benefit from the free shipping route. We will see this become an issue in the future, and Canada will probably lose. Wait Until they try to board a US battleship as its taking that route...
Alaska boundary dispute was quite a big deal in the 1800s. Probably changed the course of Canadian history as it catalysed formation of the Confederation.
@@ryandvernychuk7033. That is just a Trump thing, so it was kind of expected to be happening. But he is no more in charge, so the solution might come in peaceful agreement.
The reason a lighthouse could detect U-Boats is because U-Boats were not proper submarines. They had to travel long distances at the surface and could only launch weapons from periscope depth.
Wrong. U-boat means 'unterseeboot' or 'under sea boat'. AKA submarine. and in WW1/WW2 pretty much EVERY submarine launched from periscope depth -it's how they aimed the torpedoes.
I think he meant to get to Swains when he mentioned New Zealand but forgot. Guantanamo's not technically a territorial dispute : The US controls it on the basis of a perpetual lease, meaning it recognizes it as being under Cuban sovereignty, and the dispute is over the Castro regime's repudiation of the 1903 lease agreement. Washington doesn't recognize that repudiation and considers the lease still legally in effect, meaning it still sends a check to Havana every year for (since 1974) $4,085 - which the Cubans refuse to cash.
U boats in WW1 and WW2 couldn't stay underwater for long and were very slow when they dived, so a light house would be helpful for seeing them on the surface at night(how the German wolf packs attacks for a fair amount of time during WW2)
Hey ibx2cat, The Marshall Islands are actually an independent country under a UN Trust Treaty and were formally under US rule not New Zealand. Just thought I'd let you know ^-^
Benjamin Smith He didn't say that. If you listen very closely you can hear that he is saying "There is a dispute between the US and a selfgoverning teritory of New Zealand but New Zealand says that the argument of the selfgoverning teritory is invalid" then he said "We will move on an other dispute that is valid, between the US and the Marshall islands"
I've only ever known the Marshall Islands to be considered a US territory, like Guam. This Kiwiland claim of territory and it the islands actually being considered independent via UN trust is things I have never heard of nor read about the islands until now. Either I am misunderstanding the involvement of Kiwiland in the scenario, or, the US is teaching yet another set of historical & current fiction with self-bias.
I don't think anyone in the US is taught that the Marshall islands are a territory. The Marshall Islands do have a compact of free association with the USA though. The USA is required to provide economic and defense assistance to them and Marshall Island citizens are free to travel and work in the USA. They aren't a territory, but they do have basically all of the same benefits that American Samoa has, which is a territory.
I'm pretty sure that he mentioned two island disputes in the South Pacific. The first one, that he didn't really elaborate on, is the dispute over Swains Island, an atoll in the Tokelau chain, claimed by both, Tokelau, and the U.S., which is often compared to the dispute over Wake Island.
The thing is, the microphone he's using isn't the best in the world (I'm guessing 30 samples per second), so 0.75 speed the sound stutters and at 0.25 the sound is so sparse, it effectively mutes the video.
Yeah he does speak fast but we can clearly understand what he says I mean c'mon I'm French English isn't my mother tongue, yet I understand almost every single word don't complain over nothing
Valdoy2866™ For God's sake, does it look like I'm starting an argument 😂 Of course you can understand him, I'm trying to help people who think he speaks too fast by sharing my method.
You forgot the main reason why the USA claims many of these small Islands or banks in the Caribean and the Pacific is The Guano Islands Act of 1856, passed by the US Congress which enables citizens of the United States to take possession of unclaimed islands containing Guano deposits. The islands can be located anywhere, so long as they are not occupied or within the jurisdiction of another country or government.
Just a heads up from a Mainer, that island off the coast of Maine (Machias Seal Island) is pronounced "muh-CHAI-iss," "CHAI" being like "chi" in "child."
You got it... I've been a geography buff for years. Studied atlases in the home from a very young age. This channel here of yours is the first I've seen on TH-cam that produces quality geography content. Thanks for the videos!
An interesting thing about Navassa island is it is supposedly owned by a US businessman. -He has papers stating ownership, but the US has not verfied said ownership.
If the U.S owned Greenland I feel like it would become the 51st and 52nd state, North and South Greenland as it is such a large island, then again Alaska is huge and still only on state.
__Josh Greenland wouldn't become a state because it doesn't have the minimum population to become one. (Although, it is close, and with economic boosts from the US it could probably reach it.)
U-boats were usually surfaced and would only dive to avoid detection or when attacking ships. They ran on diesel when surfaced and then switched to a battery when submerged.
For another of your geography videos, (missed it on this one), you ought to look at "Fort Blunder"! Following the War of 1812, the United States decided to build a fort on the northern point of Lake Champlain. Surveyors who had marked the boundary between Quebec and New York, between 1771 and 1773, (before the American Revolution), had erroneously put stone markers almost a mile north the the 45th parallel, the border by a royal proclamation in 1763 and according to the Treaty of Paris of 1783. Imagine the surprise when someone discovered that the American fort had actually been built on the British side of the border, (in the Province of Canada). When the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 was negotiated, to settle boundary and other disputes, the boundary was moved back to where the surveyors had mistakenly marked it, (the Collins-Valentine line); so, the old fort was, (as had been intended), on the American side.
He is probably confused because at the time of the american war of Independence New Brunswick and Nova Scotia had not been divided yet both being Nova Scotia. I forget when then were partitioned I would guess early 19th century. Lots of documents refer to both as NS before that partition if he read any of those preparing it's a simple mistake.
Funny when I was 12 the war between the UK and Argentina broke out over the Falklands. I asked my father, well if the Falklands are closer to Argentina than the UK, shouldn't they belong to Argentina? He said well it doesn't work that way..
James Siebold Actually you were right. Especially if they had been part of the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata when they were part of the Spanish Empire and that the first inhabitants were indeed Argentines that were forced out on an American ship, when the Argentine government refused to give whaling rights to both the US and the UK.
Dwight Manne why would it be ironic. It’s ironic not to know that the islands were UNINHABITED until Spanish subjects from Argentina moved there. They were part of the Argentine territory. GB should worry more about trying to keep Scotland and Northern Ireland within their realm as opposed to trying to keep usurped territories!
The US claims those 2 Islands based on their strategic locations. They can monitor Cuba as well as have an possibility to surround it if needed and they can use it to stop Columbias Drug smuggling routes. Not to mention it's prime location for "war games" and other military exercises. You really need to look at things more closely. The answers are there.
Of course your run into danger when you title something "Every Dispute..." Not sure how you're defining things...if it's only UN recognized nations or what, but it looks like a glaring omission here is all the Native American Tribal sovereignty issues and disputes: Lakota, Navajo, Cherokee and on and on and on. I'm not bitching just trying to add to the conversation. I love this channel.
True enough - if you claim to cover everything I guess you will also miss something :) I did mean territory claimed by the US and also another UN member state
There is an awful lot of tribal lands that have a greater amount of sovreignty. They have rights to water from the Colorado river just like the states, they have their own laws while on their land, for example, just seeing for on the lands gives them the right to search you or your property. In many aspects, they are several nations within the United States.
You missed at least 2 disputed territories between Canada and the USA, both involving the province of British Columbia. There is a dispute with the state of Alaska and another with Washington.
You should do a video on the territorial dispute between Guatemala and the territory that is now Belize. Over half of it was usurped by England. The agreed to treaty would have legitimized said territory but London never kept their end of it, so it became null and void. So even Google Earth does not have a border between the two countries and it is going to arbitration at the International Court of The Hague.
Double digits of kilometers? Most of that looks to be underwater though. If you look at the satellite view of Seranilla and Bajo Nuevo, they'r actually in the hundreds of meters range.
If I become President, my first act will be challenging the Canadian Prime Minister to a game of cards (probably poker), winner’s country gets Machias Seal Island
Actually, I think Colombia's claim has to do with it being close to its San Andrés autonomous islands. It's also very fascinating that they have a huge swath of islands claimed so far from their mainland. Edit: Also, pretty sure Marshall Islands have nothing to do with New Zealand. Maybe you're thinking of the Swain Islands which are claimed by American Samoa and some other constituent country of NZ (Tokelau I think). And the reason Wake Island is so famous is because I'm pretty sure an important battle of WWII happened there.
I did not know the US had attempted to snag Greenland. Meanwhile technically Norway was the first country to "discover" Greenland, and colonize it (just like parts of Canada and also what turned into modern day Massachusetts. Meanwhile I have always been familiar with Wake island, though not the "media" fame of it. And the Marshall Islands are considered a US Territory, much like Guam & Amercian Samoa, which are the Pacific territories. Though I will admit, this country (the US) acts as if it's territories do not exist at all. They literally are there for status and in case of a war to then use as a recon point and base/outpost. On a personal note, I HATE the whole "territory" thing. We're still clinging to a imperial & empiricist governance, it's disgusting.
If I were Danmark I would've sold the US a piece of Greenland or leased it like Australia does with US military bases. I would've said either $500 million a year (modern day money) or 2 billion outright. For an area on the west coast about 50kmx50km. That's all the US would need anyway. Or they could sell/give it to Canada. Either one is good by me.
No chance Greenland would become a state. Puerto Rico with 3.2 million people is not even a state. Leaving it as a federally controlled territory also allows its use as a military asset to be much easier. There would not be a state government to get in the way of any initiatives the federal government decided to do.
the argumentation with the water in an area around an island is not 100% true since "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" was never sign by the US since they want 4 times the radius the law agreed on.
Marshall Islands have nothing to do with New Zealand. They are now independent and were at one time a Trust Territory of the US. They are now in Free Compact with the US, but are still sovereign--sort of like the relationship of countries within the EU. Grand Manan Island is in New Brunswick, not Nova Scotia. The biggest US-Canada dispute is not about territory per se but about free passage through the gradually opening Northwest Passage. There is another territorial dispute which concerns the precise location of the border through the Dixon Entrance which separates British Columbia and Alaska. It is perhaps more heated than the Machias Seal Island issues as it involves very lucrative salmon runs. It's been dealt with through a series of treaties which have expiration dates and when that occurs there is a lot of jostling in the area, compounded by Native organizations pursuing their rights. Throughout the Cold War, Greenland was pretty much de facto US territory, with tacit Danish and Greenlandic approval.
Kind of amazing that America doesn't have more disputed territories with other countries, given how we throw our weight around. These are all tiny, unpopulated islands.
The point... *It's what happens if you make the wrong friends.* Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books". Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire... And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs) *Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".* There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia." So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900). *Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.* Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I." From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one." So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so? *It does not matter.* There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was *"standing down and standing by"* to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend. 1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail... EPISODE 1: "...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain *"continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."* [Google: The_Great_Rapprochement] Sooooo gweat. Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends". *What could possibly go wrong?* EPISODE V: "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring". A "ring which ruled them all". The American Century. So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets. *No markets = no trade = no Empire.* Now, fill in the blanks yourself. EPISODES II THRU IV... Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®) Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere. After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable *alpha bark* to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about... There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
Guantanamo Bay doesn't technically fit the category of this video, because the US doesn't claim it to be their territory. It's LEASED land (since 1903), at least to the US. (Cuba considers it occupied territory.) The US sends a check for the rent every year; since the revolution the Cubans have never cashed it.
They did cash it once, just after the revolution, but claim it was by mistake.
Stamboul Yes,yes you are a mistake....
It's not a dispute about ownership, but it's still a dispute about control of that territory.
"When Cuba is free", lol. You mean when the Empire of the USA falls? And "a lot of cash"? 4k $ a year is peanuts for a country, even one with the size and resources of Cuba.
@@frechjo 4k is a lot in a country where people make about 20 dollars a month.
@@waifubreaks1572
For a person? Sure.
I said for a country. For a country is nothing. Even for a city.
Where I live, many people make around 100 dollars a month. 20k is peanuts even for my (medium size) city's annual spending.
The treaty is fraudulent, and the only reason they're still there, is because they don't give a damn. Take the time and look into it.
Territory disputes between the US and Canada are basically a friendly joke. There will never be a serious dispute between the two countries.
There is a bigger territorial dispute that is coming. The USA (and most European countries) claim that the northwest passage is international waters, whereas Canada claims it is part of their internal waterways. Due to whatever political agenda you subscribe to, the area is starting to become safely navigable for large container ships. It is a big deal as the USA (and Europe) will both benefit from the free shipping route.
We will see this become an issue in the future, and Canada will probably lose. Wait Until they try to board a US battleship as its taking that route...
It’s not friendly ... those lobster fishermen are at each other’s throats... trump even brought up the issue to get Maine’s votes
Alaska boundary dispute was quite a big deal in the 1800s. Probably changed the course of Canadian history as it catalysed formation of the Confederation.
@@ryandvernychuk7033. That is just a Trump thing, so it was kind of expected to be happening. But he is no more in charge, so the solution might come in peaceful agreement.
@@Arch757 hmmm we’ll see I guess
The reason a lighthouse could detect U-Boats is because U-Boats were not proper submarines. They had to travel long distances at the surface and could only launch weapons from periscope depth.
Thanks for explaining!
Of course. I love your geography videos. Keep it up!
Wrong. U-boat means 'unterseeboot' or 'under sea boat'. AKA submarine. and in WW1/WW2 pretty much EVERY submarine launched from periscope depth -it's how they aimed the torpedoes.
@@scottmadison4380 you're a bit stupid "under sea boat" it is a boat that acts like a submarine
"Denmark is Greenlands sugar daddy" 😂😂😂
Firehoof I know😂😂
Send all those that don't use emojis to the slammer .😂
xkyolani what 🆎🅾ut emoticon users?
Blade Gustt I don't even know anymore
DONT U MEAN MOMMY
Real men listen to his videos on 1.5x speed
Real men watch videos as the creator intended. If he wanted us to watch it in 1.5x speed, he would have accelerated it before uploading.
It takes guts
Real men watch videos at .25x because they can handle the pain.
@@Boffking He DIDN’T accelerate it???
I thought I already was
You forgot Swains Island and Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo Bay is a very important dispute.
I think he meant to get to Swains when he mentioned New Zealand but forgot. Guantanamo's not technically a territorial dispute : The US controls it on the basis of a perpetual lease, meaning it recognizes it as being under Cuban sovereignty, and the dispute is over the Castro regime's repudiation of the 1903 lease agreement. Washington doesn't recognize that repudiation and considers the lease still legally in effect, meaning it still sends a check to Havana every year for (since 1974) $4,085 - which the Cubans refuse to cash.
It's not a dispute about ownership, but it's still a dispute about control of that territory.
Do you mean swains Island and the concentration camp USA owns
Aneesh Sahu - Guantanamo Bayis a naval base. There is a detention facility there, but that’s not the whole purpose.
Yes, Guantanamo is hardly a dispute. It is an agreement.
U boats in WW1 and WW2 couldn't stay underwater for long and were very slow when they dived, so a light house would be helpful for seeing them on the surface at night(how the German wolf packs attacks for a fair amount of time during WW2)
Hey ibx2cat, The Marshall Islands are actually an independent country under a UN Trust Treaty and were formally under US rule not New Zealand. Just thought I'd let you know ^-^
Benjamin Smith He didn't say that. If you listen very closely you can hear that he is saying "There is a dispute between the US and a selfgoverning teritory of New Zealand but New Zealand says that the argument of the selfgoverning teritory is invalid" then he said "We will move on an other dispute that is valid, between the US and the Marshall islands"
I've only ever known the Marshall Islands to be considered a US territory, like Guam. This Kiwiland claim of territory and it the islands actually being considered independent via UN trust is things I have never heard of nor read about the islands until now. Either I am misunderstanding the involvement of Kiwiland in the scenario, or, the US is teaching yet another set of historical & current fiction with self-bias.
I don't think anyone in the US is taught that the Marshall islands are a territory. The Marshall Islands do have a compact of free association with the USA though. The USA is required to provide economic and defense assistance to them and Marshall Island citizens are free to travel and work in the USA.
They aren't a territory, but they do have basically all of the same benefits that American Samoa has, which is a territory.
I'm pretty sure that he mentioned two island disputes in the South Pacific. The first one, that he didn't really elaborate on, is the dispute over Swains Island, an atoll in the Tokelau chain, claimed by both, Tokelau, and the U.S., which is often compared to the dispute over Wake Island.
When second channel content is better than main channel content.
When you only even watch the second channel
@@kevincronk7981 When you never watched any video from the main channel
If you think he's speaking too fast don't complain, set it to 0.75x speed
The thing is, the microphone he's using isn't the best in the world (I'm guessing 30 samples per second), so 0.75 speed the sound stutters and at 0.25 the sound is so sparse, it effectively mutes the video.
The heck? I usually put it on 1.25 or 1.5. People actually think he talks to fast?
Jeez, I need to read comments more. 😂
Yeah he does speak fast but we can clearly understand what he says I mean c'mon I'm French English isn't my mother tongue, yet I understand almost every single word don't complain over nothing
Valdoy2866™ For God's sake, does it look like I'm starting an argument 😂
Of course you can understand him, I'm trying to help people who think he speaks too fast by sharing my method.
Haha, I set him to 1.25x too. Usually I set videos to 1.5 or 2.0. But he already speaks nicely fast :)
"Banjo Nuevo Bank"
toycat needs to go to the bank to withdraw some money for a new banjo. Must have gotten confused.
Actually, the name is in Spanish, so it should be pronounced "Baho nuevo
"Baho nuevo" *
JungDash Gd yeah thats kinda why he pointed it out
Banjo Kazooie Island
You forgot the main reason why the USA claims many of these small Islands or banks in the Caribean and the Pacific is The Guano Islands Act of 1856, passed by the US Congress which enables citizens of the United States to take possession of unclaimed islands containing Guano deposits. The islands can be located anywhere, so long as they are not occupied or within the jurisdiction of another country or government.
That act is a load of BS (bird shit)
Just a heads up from a Mainer, that island off the coast of Maine (Machias Seal Island) is pronounced "muh-CHAI-iss," "CHAI" being like "chi" in "child."
Thanks for the lesson!
You got it... I've been a geography buff for years. Studied atlases in the home from a very young age. This channel here of yours is the first I've seen on TH-cam that produces quality geography content. Thanks for the videos!
Love your videos! Always entertaining and informative. I make sure I clean my ears and have no distractions because your super fast!
An interesting thing about Navassa island is it is supposedly owned by a US businessman. -He has papers stating ownership, but the US has not verfied said ownership.
If the U.S owned Greenland I feel like it would become the 51st and 52nd state, North and South Greenland as it is such a large island, then again Alaska is huge and still only on state.
greenland is apart of the Danish Kingdom
__Josh definitely not. Since "North Greenland would have a population of 2
Good odds of getting into congress :)
__Josh Greenland wouldn't become a state because it doesn't have the minimum population to become one.
(Although, it is close, and with economic boosts from the US it could probably reach it.)
Nah, size shouldn't matter(LUL). I feel that the best form of administrative divisions is by population, like in Iceland (I think)
8:10 I think the light house could detect u-boats because it illuminated deep waters so other ships could see them.
When are you going to play Geoguessr on the channel again?
Uboat thing- my guess would be to spot them at night since uboats would surface at night
"EVERY disputed territory with the USA"
*doesn't mention guantanimo bay*
U-boats were usually surfaced and would only dive to avoid detection or when attacking ships. They ran on diesel when surfaced and then switched to a battery when submerged.
*triggered Canadian* calls Grand Manan island part of Nova Scotia when it's part of New Brunswick
For another of your geography videos, (missed it on this one), you ought to look at "Fort Blunder"! Following the War of 1812, the United States decided to build a fort on the northern point of Lake Champlain. Surveyors who had marked the boundary between Quebec and New York, between 1771 and 1773, (before the American Revolution), had erroneously put stone markers almost a mile north the the 45th parallel, the border by a royal proclamation in 1763 and according to the Treaty of Paris of 1783. Imagine the surprise when someone discovered that the American fort had actually been built on the British side of the border, (in the Province of Canada). When the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 was negotiated, to settle boundary and other disputes, the boundary was moved back to where the surveyors had mistakenly marked it, (the Collins-Valentine line); so, the old fort was, (as had been intended), on the American side.
"Hello.. I'm sighdtCAT!"
I do not understad how ibx2 becomes... whatever he is saying in his intro.
It's just toycat.
toy cat is what I say :)
Fredrik S Eye bee X toy cat. Probably don’t understand the accent
@ibk2cat just thought you shoud know that the island of Grand Manan is actually part of the Canadian province, New Brunswick. Not Nova Scotia.
Grand Manan is in New Brunswick, not Nova Scotia
He is probably confused because at the time of the american war of Independence New Brunswick and Nova Scotia had not been divided yet both being Nova Scotia. I forget when then were partitioned I would guess early 19th century. Lots of documents refer to both as NS before that partition if he read any of those preparing it's a simple mistake.
Uboats cruised on the surface and only submerged when a contact was spotted visually. Therefore they could be seen by lighthouses.
Funny when I was 12 the war between the UK and Argentina broke out over the Falklands. I asked my father, well if the Falklands are closer to Argentina than the UK, shouldn't they belong to Argentina? He said well it doesn't work that way..
James Siebold Actually you were right. Especially if they had been part of the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata when they were part of the Spanish Empire and that the first inhabitants were indeed Argentines that were forced out on an American ship, when the Argentine government refused to give whaling rights to both the US and the UK.
@@Roca005 ironic that you used the *SPANISH* empire as your argument...
Dwight Manne why would it be ironic. It’s ironic not to know that the islands were UNINHABITED until Spanish subjects from Argentina moved there. They were part of the Argentine territory.
GB should worry more about trying to keep Scotland and Northern Ireland within their realm as opposed to trying to keep usurped territories!
@@Roca005 Argentina wouldn't exist if it wasn't for....... *SPAIN*
The US claims those 2 Islands based on their strategic locations. They can monitor Cuba as well as have an possibility to surround it if needed and they can use it to stop Columbias Drug smuggling routes. Not to mention it's prime location for "war games" and other military exercises. You really need to look at things more closely. The answers are there.
Why haven't you mentioned Guantanamo bay?
Guantanamo is not disputed. You can't have a dispute if you paid for it.
listening to this at .75% speed is so much more enjoyable for my ears.
Of course your run into danger when you title something "Every Dispute..." Not sure how you're defining things...if it's only UN recognized nations or what, but it looks like a glaring omission here is all the Native American Tribal sovereignty issues and disputes: Lakota, Navajo, Cherokee and on and on and on. I'm not bitching just trying to add to the conversation. I love this channel.
True enough - if you claim to cover everything I guess you will also miss something :) I did mean territory claimed by the US and also another UN member state
There is an awful lot of tribal lands that have a greater amount of sovreignty. They have rights to water from the Colorado river just like the states, they have their own laws while on their land, for example, just seeing for on the lands gives them the right to search you or your property. In many aspects, they are several nations within the United States.
You missed at least 2 disputed territories between Canada and the USA, both involving the province of British Columbia. There is a dispute with the state of Alaska and another with Washington.
wake island isnt disputed. We own the island, period.
Another country claims the island so there is a dispute.
You should do a video on the territorial dispute between Guatemala and the territory that is now Belize. Over half of it was usurped by England. The agreed to treaty would have legitimized said territory but London never kept their end of it, so it became null and void. So even Google Earth does not have a border between the two countries and it is going to arbitration at the International Court of The Hague.
are you from Guatemala
Double digits of kilometers? Most of that looks to be underwater though. If you look at the satellite view of Seranilla and Bajo Nuevo, they'r actually in the hundreds of meters range.
If I become President, my first act will be challenging the Canadian Prime Minister to a game of cards (probably poker), winner’s country gets Machias Seal Island
Did he really just say banjo nevo
Actually, I think Colombia's claim has to do with it being close to its San Andrés autonomous islands. It's also very fascinating that they have a huge swath of islands claimed so far from their mainland.
Edit: Also, pretty sure Marshall Islands have nothing to do with New Zealand. Maybe you're thinking of the Swain Islands which are claimed by American Samoa and some other constituent country of NZ (Tokelau I think).
And the reason Wake Island is so famous is because I'm pretty sure an important battle of WWII happened there.
He never talks about jogging though he always says that he's going to...he even invents a word to describe it.
Not Nova Scotia, New Brunswick! (I'm from there, haha)
KartoffelHundin that's because at the time the dispute arose, NB was part of NS. I have a feeling he missed that part of the history.
I'm from NB also☺
Kenneth Scott Huntley
Actually, New Brunswick was always separate from Nova Scotia.
Minimum definition is that the island/rock must be above water during high tide.
How the hell did they build 2 banks in the middle of the sea
The Illuminati needs places to hold their gold. ;)
i love your videos, please talk about Italy
My doctor advised against watching this video because the frenetic speed this fellow talks at may cause heart palpitations and light headedness.
Just think if Denmark could sell chunks of glacier water… that’s a *massive* amount of fresh water they have control of…
All of your islands are belong to U.S.
"Closing in on all sides" Shit he's onto us, LAUNCH THE NUKES
It's not about a lighthouse, it's about fishing laws. And, is there any chance you can speak faster?
I did not know the US had attempted to snag Greenland. Meanwhile technically Norway was the first country to "discover" Greenland, and colonize it (just like parts of Canada and also what turned into modern day Massachusetts. Meanwhile I have always been familiar with Wake island, though not the "media" fame of it. And the Marshall Islands are considered a US Territory, much like Guam & Amercian Samoa, which are the Pacific territories. Though I will admit, this country (the US) acts as if it's territories do not exist at all. They literally are there for status and in case of a war to then use as a recon point and base/outpost. On a personal note, I HATE the whole "territory" thing. We're still clinging to a imperial & empiricist governance, it's disgusting.
The Marshalls have not been a territory since 1986. They're independent now.
If I were Danmark I would've sold the US a piece of Greenland or leased it like Australia does with US military bases. I would've said either $500 million a year (modern day money) or 2 billion outright. For an area on the west coast about 50kmx50km. That's all the US would need anyway.
Or they could sell/give it to Canada. Either one is good by me.
My grandparents live on Grand mannan island and go on trips to machais seal island
No chance Greenland would become a state. Puerto Rico with 3.2 million people is not even a state. Leaving it as a federally controlled territory also allows its use as a military asset to be much easier. There would not be a state government to get in the way of any initiatives the federal government decided to do.
+ibx2cat The Marshall islands has a free association pact with US
the argumentation with the water in an area around an island is not 100% true since "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" was never sign by the US since they want 4 times the radius the law agreed on.
Let me trigger people.
There are 4 continents.
IDIOT!! THERE ARE ONLY 3 CONTINENTS Eurasia, America, Australia... learn some geography.
There is Eurafrasia, America, Oceania, and Antarctica. :D
Antarctica is an island you silly!
Ethnic Kekistani Freedom Fighter When you think about it, continents are just huge f*cking islands
It's six or seven, no less
the fact that this video is 14 minutes tell you enough
What about the dispute with the UK about those 13 states on the east coast?
Grand Manan is part of New Brunswick not Nova Scotia.
What about the Black Hills with the Lakota people
WTF!ibx2cat and seeker uploaded at the same time again.
Marshall Islands is an independent country, not a territory of New Zealand.
If we are going by distance than Jersey should be french
True but then you could say gibraltar is spanish and the falklands are argentina...
You forgot Guantanamo bay the most famous us dispute
10:21 best battlefield
You better got the Florida Keys
Who's your friend who likes to play?
what about russia and US dispute border
India is capturing Nepal's land day by day India has already captured lipulekh, kalapani 😞😟😢😔
Yeah bro
Holy American Empire when?
You seem to forget that for nearly a decade we were ruled by a wanna-be communist dictator. Remember "I've got a pen and I've got a phone?"
Based on experience with holy empires that are now Germany, the name is not supposed to describe it, so the "American" part doesn't work.
Marshall Islands have nothing to do with New Zealand. They are now independent and were at one time a Trust Territory of the US. They are now in Free Compact with the US, but are still sovereign--sort of like the relationship of countries within the EU. Grand Manan Island is in New Brunswick, not Nova Scotia. The biggest US-Canada dispute is not about territory per se but about free passage through the gradually opening Northwest Passage. There is another territorial dispute which concerns the precise location of the border through the Dixon Entrance which separates British Columbia and Alaska. It is perhaps more heated than the Machias Seal Island issues as it involves very lucrative salmon runs. It's been dealt with through a series of treaties which have expiration dates and when that occurs there is a lot of jostling in the area, compounded by Native organizations pursuing their rights. Throughout the Cold War, Greenland was pretty much de facto US territory, with tacit Danish and Greenlandic approval.
I guess they want to know what’s inside that bank. :)
I think you mean "ba-ho" not ba-joe nuevo bank...
Worse than that, he said BAN-jō instead of BAH-hō.
Kind of amazing that America doesn't have more disputed territories with other countries, given how we throw our weight around. These are all tiny, unpopulated islands.
On the topic of Greenland. Denmark basically stole it from Norway.
taking about a caffeine overdose
Please make a video about the formation of new islands
Was there a reupload or is TH-cam just messing around with me?
My unit in the Marine Corps was the Wake Island Avengers. Wake Island not going anywhere.
The point...
*It's what happens if you make the wrong friends.*
Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books".
Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened.
Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting.
By own admission:
"The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time."
[From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany]
In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers.
London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire".
Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances.
Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire...
And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs)
*Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".*
There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia."
So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900).
*Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.*
Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I."
From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one."
So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so?
*It does not matter.*
There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told.
And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power).
The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was *"standing down and standing by"* to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend.
1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail...
EPISODE 1:
"...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain *"continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."*
[Google: The_Great_Rapprochement]
Sooooo gweat.
Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends".
*What could possibly go wrong?*
EPISODE V:
"At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."*
[globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]
After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"...
Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring".
A "ring which ruled them all".
The American Century.
So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets.
*No markets = no trade = no Empire.*
Now, fill in the blanks yourself.
EPISODES II THRU IV...
Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®).
Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®)
Fill in the gaps.
See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere.
After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner.
The old colonial master, now the new junior partner.
A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable *alpha bark* to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about...
There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
See u boats when they rise for air
As a Nova Scotian, I can say Grand Manaan does not belong to my province. New Brunswick owns those islands by Maine.
Is it me or does views go up faster when it's about the US
Good of The Danish Kingdom to keep Greenland. In 100 years it will be habitable and in the center of most of the world's shipping commerce.
Marshall Islands is its own country, not New Zealand's territory.
"That pesky revolution"
Never Lucky m8 just proof he’s British
Toycat do a video about Guam
You didn't mention the most obvious Guatemala :/ still great though
Greenland would be better off as a Canadian province.
How about this we’ll give all of the disputes to the Vatican you know make it not the smallest
No one:
America: oh look, an island! *That’s ours now*
haha ha! im so funi becuz i added nobody!!!1!1!!1!1!1!1!!
@@missilluminated1 Reddit moment
wow, this video probably has the best like to dislike ratio so far
-Sponsorships also feed the wife and kids.-
why, America
United Kingdom Mapping why not? He has made several videos about other places as well.
Other people do drugs and have sex, this guy gets on Google maps.
Absolutely butchered the pronunciation of Machias. I’m from Maine and that’s not even close to how your supposed to say it.
Pornhub brought me here.
Dan Schwartz hmm.. how?
How?
Did you have an eargasm?
Omg, can he speak any faster?
Banjo Nuevo is banho
119