5
$\begingroup$

Kingdom without king
while surrounded by itself
was declaring war,

without wanting land.
Led by a fleet admiral,
without a navy.

But it had demands,
from many other countries:
from its own allies.

When did this happen?

$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

It's

Hungary during WWII

Explanation:

After WWI, Hungary remained formally a kingdom, but the Habsburgs were not allowed in the country and Hungary has been ruled by the regent Miklós Horthy - de facto a dictator, former Austro-Hungarian navy admiral. But Hungary remained landlocked after Croatia split off, indeed, all the land around Hungary post-WWI (now other countries) belonged to it before (with the exception of General Government).

 

During WWII, Hungary was allied to Germany, as well as Slovakia, Croatia and Romania. Hungary. however, kept territorial demands to all these countries (this included e.g. a short war with Slovakia). There were also some territorial demands towards Germany (Burgenland), but these were not expressed too loudly...

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Since this is an answer based on history, would you mind posting a link so we know you didn't just make it up? :) $\endgroup$ – Lawrence Apr 4 '18 at 14:49
  • $\begingroup$ A few details are wrong (it was Miklós, not István, and Burgenland belongs to Austria not Germany), and the question is not directly answered (against whom was the war declared and when), but otherwise it's correct. $\endgroup$ – vsz Apr 4 '18 at 18:25
  • $\begingroup$ @vsz Thanks, I fixed Horthy (and also added links). However, Burgenland at the time did belong to Germany... $\endgroup$ – Radovan Garabík Apr 5 '18 at 7:38
  • $\begingroup$ The question itself was technically still not answered, but as the puzzle has obviously been solved, I accept it and provide the missing info: it happened in December 1941, when Hungary declared war on the USA, being required to follow the Germans. They obviously had no land claims against the USA. They had, however, land claims against several of their allies. Why were they still allies? The Germans have actually split the contested lands in two (see Vienna Award), forcing the countries into a bitter alliance. If one wouldn't behave as the Germans wanted, both halves would go to the other one $\endgroup$ – vsz Apr 20 '18 at 19:41
2
$\begingroup$

Could this be a reference to

Brexit?

Kingdom without king

The United Kingdom has a queen, not a king.

while surrounded by itself

It's surrounded by British waters, with no land neighbours except in Ireland.

was declaring war,

Well, not exactly, but you wouldn't be the first person to compare recent Britain-EU relations to a war.

without wanting land.

Britain isn't trying to claim land from the EU.

Led by a fleet admiral,
without a navy.

Maybe this refers to Britain's honorary Fleet Admirals like Prince Charles and Prince Philip?

But it had demands,

Oh yes. Lots of 'em.

from many other countries:

The remaining EU member states.

from its own allies.

Many of whom are allies of Britain, e.g. via NATO.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why the downvotes? I didn't insert any of my own political opinion here! :-) $\endgroup$ – Rand al'Thor Apr 4 '18 at 15:59
1
$\begingroup$

When did this happen? I'll tell you exactly when:

1918 - 1922, the Russian Civil War.

Explanation:

Kingdom without king
while surrounded by itself
was declaring war,

...

Tsar Nicholas II had been executed (1918 Jly 17), along with the rest of the royal family, so there was no King on the throne. Surrounded by itself? I guess that's a poetic way of saying Civil War. Declaring war? Yes, definitely, making war is as good as declaring war, and a Civil War is definitely war.

...

without wanting land.
Led by a fleet admiral,
without a navy.

...

It's tough to make this first part fit, cuz one of the Bolshevik slogans was "peace, bread, and land". However, that was referring to giving land to the peasants from the kulaks, not an external war of conquest for land. "led by a fleet admiral without a navy". That would be Admiral Kolchak, who led the White Army. The Russian Navy, as far as I know, did not partake in the Civil War at all. (Cruiser Aurora fired some shots on the Winter Palace, but that was at the start of the Bolshevik Revolution (1917 Nov 07), whereas the Civil War didn't start till sometime in 1918 and was entirely taking place in the towns and countryside.)

...

But it had demands,
from many other countries:
from its own allies.

...

Indeed, Lenin's goal was not only to win the Civil War but to "export the revolution", meaning that other countries should start their own communist revolution, with civil war if necessary. He tried to incite this with powerful rhetoric. His demand of other countries was to throw off capitalism, and in general, "all workers of the world, unite!". I know it's a little confusing with the "without wanting land" part, since this seems want a world unification under one banner. But it's more like wanting all the workers of the world to take control of their workplaces, and getting rid of nationalism (which is how the world was before Napoleon), so not necessarily uniting the world under one govt.

...

"from its own allies". Well in WW1, Russia was allied with Britain, France, then America...some other countries too. Then in the Civil War, all that changed. I believe both the Reds and the Whites made demands of these "allies", to convert to communism and to aid the anti-communist movement respectively, so it is true no matter which side you look at it.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.