Here are some (mostly older) pictures from Selfkant which was the biggest of the German towns that were under Dutch administration:
It’s the westernmost part of Germany which BTW also used to be a smuggler’s paradise in the decades after the war.
That’s what I thought of when I read the OP.
Belgium will probably qualify soon.
It wasn’t quite as amicable as that. Both nations increased their military expenditure leading up to 1905, with Norway upgrading and expanding their border fortifications in anticipation of the expected war.
There was a brief war in 1814 over the issue, and probably one of the major reasons 1905 didn’t turn bloody,was that Norway managed to garner international support for their cause and Sweden feared a new war with Norway would isolate them.
Of course they didn’t just give it away. It was part of a deal that cleared up border disputes all over Africa and gave the British all rights and interests in Zanzibar.
Yes, but the German involvement in Zanzibar was a rather short and obscure interlude. Heligoland on the other hand is an island 29 miles off the German coast.
There were some parts of the homelands which were effectively townships of cities in “South Africa proper” - for example Mdantsane in Ciskei (next to East London) and Ga-Rankuwa in Boputhatswana (next to Pretoria). But I don’t know if “slums” would really be an accurate description; and of course the majority of the TBVC territories were rural areas.
Ummm… what made Hawaii different?
There were considerably more whites in Hawaii than on the Philippines. Not to mention the strategic value.
IMO, the Phillippines seem to have a much more strategic value than Hawaii. (The Phillippines have a much closer proximity to the valuable trade markets of China, Japan, and South East Asia.)
The U.S. fought an stronger insurgency in the Phillippines in the years following our taken over after the Spanish-American War. This insurgency was harder to defeat compared to those in Hawaii, Cuba, or Puerto Rico.
I think to U.S. probably decided to “cut bait”.
In short: I don’t think that that policy was decided on a racial/racist basis.
I dunno; I can see the strategic value in having islands smack in the middle of the biggest ocean on the planet. If nothing else, that makes Hawaii a convenient stopping-over point, and nearly halves the range needed for a vehicle to cross the ocean.
Finally, I’m not the one making that mistake.
Stupid Flanders.
The British gave up a completely un-defendable island less than 1 square mile, less than 30 miles away from the German coast. It wasn’t an asset, it was a liability. And the transfer to Germany helped relieve some of the growing tensions between the countries.
In exchange they got, a free hand in Zanzibar and in 6 years had full control. They also got over a thousand square miles of German East Africa. So they hardly just gave up the island. And the treaty was widely criticized in Germany, where it was claimed they had given up way too much for a tiny island. The claim was that they had given up “trousers for a button.”
Hawaii in those days was becoming increasingly populated with wealthy American and European businessmen – plantation owners in particular, I think – who saw economic advantage in becoming part of the United States. They conspired to overthrow the monarchy and establish an independent nation, with the idea in mind that they would quickly petition the Unite States government for admission as a Territory.
Although I’ve never seen it mentioned in history books that I’ve noticed, I always thought this whole scenario sort of paralleled the history of California (or at least a portion thereof) as a Mexican territory, followed by the Bear Flag Revolt of a group of pioneers who saw economic advantage in becoming part of the United States, followed by it becoming so.
It also had two big extra motivations: the South African government could then deprive its black residents of citizenship on the grounds they were now citizens of these new countries, and it’s easier to impose labor regulations on foreigners than citizens of your country. Not that anyone outside of the South African government treated these “countries” as truly independent.
That was mainly because he couldn’t do anything with Louisiana. He was at war with Britain and the British controlled the sea lanes. The French were unable to even send a new governor to Louisiana. Napolean had earlier forced the Spanish to transfer the territory to France, but Spanish officials were still running the place when Lewis and Clark showed up to begin their expedition.
The Spainsh, BTW, were very unhappy with the transfer to France and sale to the US. Also with the L&C Expedition. The Spanish governor in New Mexico actually sent his own expedition to intercept L&C, but they failed.
Without Hawaii, the Philippine islands were useless to the US, for distance-related reasons already mentioned (one concern that is kind of funny to look back on today is that they wouldn’t be able to defend isolated overseas territories against the British if war broke out). As an interesting historical footnote, the US and Germany almost got into a fight over them right before WWI (German had significant colonial possessions in the Pacific at the time), but the two naval forces got distracted by a hurricane that blew through the area and other issues came to the front soon after.
Here’s an example that I can’t believe nobody mentioned (which means it was probably mentioned in post #3), the Republic of Texas, which gave up the entirety of its territory to the United States (which promptly gave a big chunk of that territory back to Mexico, which is why the states of New Mexico and Nevada are not part of Texas today. Reasons for giving the territory in question back to Mexico included zeroing out the Republic’s considerable debts, getting Mexico to give up its claim to Texas itself, the general low value of the real estate in question at the time, and of course the small issue that nobody living in that part of the Republic granted any such territorial claims to the Republic of Texas to begin with.)
Mind you, much of the motive for the Republic of Texas joining with the US was the fact that they were flat-ass broke and were unsure of their chances of winning additional wars with Mexico (they had fought in two or three such wars up to this point in the Republic’s brief history, including joining on the side of the Republic of Yucatan, who at the time were fighting a short-lived war of independence against the Mexican government). A few decades later, they tried to get the state back, but that ended poorly in a pretty nasty affair in the 1860’s, and was a pretty controversial thing.
A Texas-Yucatan alliance, how was that supposed to work considering they’re on the opposite ends of Mexico?! 
Except for giving the Mexican gov’t the headache of a two-front war, of what assistance would Texas be to the Yucatan or vice versa?
Well, I’m glad you asked, cause it’s one of those weird stories that only happens in history books. A small force of Texan warships operating in the Gulf of Mexico against Mexican fishing boats, having suffered from mutinies and unable to secure resupply, was recalled to Texas to be disbanded and scrapped (the Navy was never popular in the Republic), the commander of the force was offered 8,000 dollars a month by the Yucatan rebels to come help them lift a blockade near Campeche.
It was pretty much all a renegade action on the part of the Texan forces (I’m embarrassed to say that I forgot about that bit until I looked it up just now). Both the Texan and Yucatan ships were commanded by Texans (so, in all likelihood, transplanted Americans), while the Mexican forces were largely commanded by British officers with a mixed crew of Mexican and British sailors. The two forces fought to a draw twice, both declared victory, then the Texans returned to Galveston. The 1851 Colt Navy Revolvers all feature an engraving based on the battle.
I see what you did there.