It wasn’t kicked out, but the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) had self-government thrust upon it by the Commonwealth of Australia in 1988, despite the fact that almost two-thirds of ACT voters had rejected self-government at a previous referendum.
Would the creation of Liberia as an artificial African homeland for American freed slaves fit the definition?
It’s not unknown for country A to cede part of its territory to country B for reasons which have nothing to do with the iwishes of the inhabitants or political establishment of the country concerned. For example, Alsace-Lorraine was passed back and forth between Germany and France a couple of times. Each time, though, the ceding country had just lost a war, so it wasn’t as though they were getting rid of the territory because they wanted to.
Once the British decided to leave India, it was inevitable that they would leave (the countries then callled) Burma and Ceylon as well. I assume, but don’t know, that there were already national independence movements in these two countries which enjoyed some degree of popular support. The British also withdrew their Protectorate from a number of nominally independent Indian princely states, putting them under considerable pressure to join either India or Pakistan. I don’t know how the inhabitants felt about that, but in a number of cases the rulers were certainly not happy. At least one - Hyderabad - tried to maintain its indepdence from India but was annexed by force by India.
Well, there’s always Cospaia.
I don’t know that this is correct. The state would retain its equal suffrage in the Senate up until the dissociation vote, at which point it is no longer a state, and thus not entitled to any representation in the Senate. There would be no point in time in which it is a state without equal Senate representation.
I’d expect we’d vote 'em “out” again, if we had the chance.
Nova Scotia is another “sorta example”. When its voters rejected the colony leaders’ decisions to become a Canadian province, the British refused.
That was a case of ethnic cleansing, which the OP specifically rejects. It’s worth noting that many if not most Acadians eventually came back to what is today Atlantic Canada after a few years, and still live there. But most of them no longer live on the Fundy coast of Nova Scotia, which is where they were before their expulsion.
And as a Canadian history nitpick, at the time of the Acadian expulsion, Nova Scotia/Acadia wasn’t part of what was known as “Canada” and had never been. Canada and Acadia were established during the 17th century as separate French colonies with separate populations, and only became part of the same country in 1867.
I’m seconding this question. While Bavaria has a unique history and culture among German states, I’ve never heard any suggestion that any non-crackpot politician would like to see them expelled from the country.
Many people have already weighed in on this subject, but my understanding is that by the 30s the goal of the Indian National Congress was to establish a single independent state on the territory of British India, but then started to splinter between Muslim and Hindu branches. The Muslims were afraid they’d be politically sidelined in a united India and developed the concept of “Pakistan”. Of course, when both countries finally became independent there were population and territorial exchanges between them which aren’t totally formalized today.
It’s an interesting part of history, but as I understand it most of the Liberian colonists were volunteers, and knew they were going there to establish an independent country.
What about Philippine independence? The US was pushing it, but were the Philippines themselves ready for it to happen, particularly since they’d just been wrecked in WWII?
Actually, I don’t think that there’s any country that would have wanted to continue a union with the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic in 1992 when the Soviet Union ended - all of these countries’ leaders were far too happy to be able to run their own country. Similarly, the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1993 was very much run by the Slovakian elite rather than by the masses either in the Czech Republic or in Slovakia. Apparently, a fairly sizeable majority in both parts of Czechoslovakia opposed the split. However, Mečiar c.s. were just far too thrilled that they could have their own country.
To return to the USSR, Belarus has been making ouvertures towards Russia but not a whole lot of progress has been made, even though they did form something of a customs union now. Still, the attempts to re-form something like a mini-SU with Belarus and Russia have only started about a decade after the end of the Soviet Union.
In 410 AD Roman Emperor Honorius responded to a plea for help from Roman Britain for more troops by authorizing them to take steps to defend themselves as best they could. Sure, they expected to come back to help Britain eventually, but in the context of the time, it was basically forcing independence on people who did not want it, because “taking steps to one’s own defense” at the time meant “set up a strong man who can get things done, and if you’re in Northwest Europe, try to break away from Rome as a competing Emperor.”
At least the crazy Bavarian party regularly each election battle puts the slogans on their posters that they want to secede Bavaria from the EU and for good measure from Germany too.
So if the Bavarian Party ever manages to be elected to more than minority status, and get majority or enough for a coalition, it would be a mutual seccession (no matter how idiotic and ecnomically suicidal it is).
Came here to mention the Great Upheaval, and was beaten to the punch.
Are you thinking of giving Detroit back to Canada and New Orleans back the the British again? We tried that…they wouldn’t take em! 
Decolonization of Africa, mainly in the Sixties, was pretty rapid. No doubt a certain part of the population was opposed to it, rightly suspecting they’d get some thug autocrat and his own tribe in charge instead.
Following a coup, in 1975 Portugal decided to get out of the colony business, and abruptly granted independence to Guinea Bissau, Cape Verde, Mozambique, East Timor, São Tomé, and Angola. They also tried to give Macao back to China, but China wouldn’t accept it until 1999: Portugal: End of an Empire.
Does the Roman expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem count? In 135AD, after the third major Jewish revolt against Roman rule, Hadrian expelled all Jews from the city and sent them into the Jewish diaspora, which comes close to meeting the definition of “a country that kicked out a portion of its citizenry and told them to form their own country against the will of those kicked out”.
The only problems would be that you could say Rome wasn’t expelling citizens from its own ‘country’ but rather one of its colonies; that Jerusalem wasn’t a country and there were still Jews living in the newly-formed Syria Palaestina, on the other hand. But those objections are perhaps a bit unfair given that “countries” as such didn’t really exist back then in the same way they do now.
I wonder how much say the residents of Alaska had over the sale of their homeland.
Also prior to the 1967 war, the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian administration, also the West Bank was under Jordanian admin. Neither appear particularly keen on restoring their ‘lost’ territory.
Just a nit-pick, it’s the Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew. There’s still ancient TV footage of him being in tears when proclaiming that. My guesses were that he had no idea how the country was going to survive without Malaysia.
Also, he was distraught over nearly choking to death on some chewing gum. The ramifications of that still echo.