Uninvaded

Nov. 4th, 2012 11:43 am
steepholm: (Default)
[personal profile] steepholm
What do the following countries have in common?

Andorra
Belarus
Bolivia
Burundi
Central African Republic
Chad
Congo, Republic of
Guatemala
Ivory Coast
Kyrgyzstan
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Mali
Marshall Islands
Monaco
Mongolia
Paraguay
Sao Tome and Principe
Sweden
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Vatican City

According to Stuart Laycock, they hold the distinction of being the only countries never to have been invaded by Britain. I'm sure there's some room for argument about this, but still - what a pugnacious lot we are, and have been. (I realise this is not a very original observation, but there you go.)

(no subject)

Date: 2012-11-04 12:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mevennen.livejournal.com
We are pugnacious, but I'm not sure that other places have a particularly fantastic track record either: maybe someone will do a world guide to invasion.

Also, is it accurate? When did we invade Kazakhstan? Have we actually invaded Russia per se? Finland?

(no subject)

Date: 2012-11-04 12:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] steepholm.livejournal.com
Indeed - I suspect that much of the book must be spent finessing the meaning of "invasion". But taken as a broad brush picture, it's arresting.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-11-05 05:05 pm (UTC)
ext_12726: (cup of tea)
From: [identity profile] heleninwales.livejournal.com
I don't recall us ever invading Korea or Thailand? And what about places like Canada, Australia and New Zealand? I know we colonised them, but that's not quite the same as invading. How are they defining "invading"?

(no subject)

Date: 2012-11-05 05:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] steepholm.livejournal.com
From the article I linked to, it seems they're defining invasion as "having a military presence in", which would certainly include Korea. I don't know enough about Thailand to say, as to that. And well, I think Canada and Australia and New Zealand probably did seem very much like an invasion from the point of view of the people we took them from!

(no subject)

Date: 2012-11-06 09:15 am (UTC)
ext_12726: (Harlech castle)
From: [identity profile] heleninwales.livejournal.com
I'm not sure that it would include Korea. The Korean war was fought by UN troops, so though there were British soldiers there, they weren't actually British, if you see what I mean.

Also, if you use "having a military presence in" then, by that definition, the US has invaded the UK! I think that is definitely stretching the meaning well beyond what the ordinary person in the street would accept as "invading".

(no subject)

Date: 2012-11-06 10:59 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] steepholm.livejournal.com
Yes, I think it's a fairly latitudinous definition - I say without having read the book. Attacks by government-approved pirates also count, apparently.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-11-04 04:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] puddleshark.livejournal.com
I can't believe we never invaded Luxembourg! We should do it now, just on principle.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-11-04 05:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shewhomust.livejournal.com
No, no! Vatican City first!

(no subject)

Date: 2012-11-04 09:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mevennen.livejournal.com
I was going to say that Luxembourg has better wine but that probably isn't true.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-11-05 12:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gillpolack.livejournal.com
I think you should launch terribly miniature invasions (maybe assisted by Lego cannons) of all these countries, just to make it all even. Or you could add cultural invasion to the list of invasion techniques and be left with very few indeed.

Profile

steepholm: (Default)
steepholm

February 2026

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags