Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Only 22 Countries Have Never Been Invaded By Britain?


Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441
  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1
HOLA442

Some confusion between war and occupation here. Britain may have sent armies and fleets to fight all round the globe but to suggest that the UK has ever invaded somewhere like Russia with the aim of colonising it is simply stretching the historical evidence beyond breaking point

What were we doing in the Crimea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443
3
HOLA444
4
HOLA445
5
HOLA446
6
HOLA447
7
HOLA448

Well the English first invaded England, and then proceeded to invade the rest of Britain...

What English? When?

I thought it was Scots who ruled, going back at least to James the SixthFirst, and continuing into modern times with the likes of Brown&Darling, Westlothian rule, and even a current prime minister whose name suggests Scottish heritage (which matters in someone as blue-blooded as him). And don't get me started on that nasty squabble between the Scots and the Irish in Northern Ireland, for which English taxpayers get the blame and the bill.

But anyway, my question was about Britain, and hence implicitly about the British. Not English or Scots (or even the Welsh who colonised India - as witness the strong Welsh lilt in Indian spoken English).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449

You beat me to it! And most of the countries we invaded either won't let us live in them unless you pass a strict criteria or are too dangerous to even visit because you are not one of them.

since when did we invade somalia?that was french territory wasn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410

What English? When?

I thought it was Scots who ruled, going back at least to James the SixthFirst, and continuing into modern times with the likes of Brown&Darling, Westlothian rule, and even a current prime minister whose name suggests Scottish heritage (which matters in someone as blue-blooded as him). And don't get me started on that nasty squabble between the Scots and the Irish in Northern Ireland, for which English taxpayers get the blame and the bill.

But anyway, my question was about Britain, and hence implicitly about the British. Not English or Scots (or even the Welsh who colonised India - as witness the strong Welsh lilt in Indian spoken English).

there's lovely, always thaught mulligatawny was a welsh province in india rather than soup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411

:lol::lol:

I think when some African tribes saw three European armies coming from all sides, being British was the least bad option.

I was in India a few years back and I asked an Indian colleaugue what the Indians thought about the British Empire, and what it was all about.

Even I am too young to remember it. But their grandfathers will.

The general consensus, after 1947, is they are quite fond of the British.

well the partition only really came about because there were some rather rabid pakistani factions that wanted statehood,

now if it came to the crunch between being run by britain or pakistan/caliphate,I think the indians would probably prefer britain.

kashmir is still a hotbed of tension.

no particular problem with helping them out a bit economically, but it should be through trade rather than aid now.

we should help them sort out their power outage problems,and food wasteage issues(refrigerators don't work too well in 40 degrees and only being able to run 10 hours a day)

that would bring benefit to all of them, rather than a few moguls spending obscene amounts of money on space rockets and movies.

in fact, for the £200m per year.

with enough will, we could fix that issue for them in 5-10 years,as long as who and where the money is spent is carefully monitored...and it would earn us serious brownie points diplomatically- bearing in mind the opposition are trying to make our politicians look and act as corrupt as at all possible..publically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412

Dubious. This seems to have originated in a book published in 2012. The Telegraph says

Only a comparatively small proportion of the total in Mr Laycock's list of invaded states actually formed an official part of the empire.

The remainder have been included because the British were found to have achieved some sort of military presence in the territory – however transitory – either through force, the threat of force, negotiation or payment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html

"Invaded" is a bit much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413

I went to Pakistan once as well. Slighty more dangerous, but I am British, so this is no problem to me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414
14
HOLA4415
15
HOLA4416
16
HOLA4417

I don't recall the invasion of Israel !

If you call it Palestine, it makes it a lot easier. :blink:;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418
Guest TheBlueCat

Once known as New Holland and New France respectively.

Even if you don't count colonisation and displacement of existing inhabitants as 'invasion', the Seven Years war supports a case that Britain did invade a fair chunk of what is now Canada.

Broadly, Quebec and its surroundings. The final act of the British invasion of the French part was this:

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/battle-of-the-plains-of-abraham/

Everything to the West of the Quebec was colonised bit at a time.

As a slight aside, it's interesting to note how Canadian Quebec still is despite all of the history and the independence votes etc. If you visit Quebec City (definitely worth a trip) alongside all the pre-revolutionary French stuff there's also plenty of Canadian flags flying and memorials to non-French Canadians. It's the polar opposite of Edinburgh now that I think of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419

Although my Scawtish colleague, with the orange hair always got looked at a bit more. He did stand out a bit, being 6'3. He should have worn a kilt, and carried bagpipes with him.

Well, he should have worn at least something below the waist. No wonder they stared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420
20
HOLA4421

Well, he should have worn at least something below the waist. No wonder they stared.

No you actually see totally naked "religious" men out there!

I always listened to "the BBC" when I could find it on the short wave radio I wasn't supposed to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422

Greenland-I don't remember ever invading Greenland.

The map stretches the truth to its limits.

Britain occupied Iceland in WWII. Iceland and Greenland were both nations in the Kingdom of Denmark at that time.

ergo, we occupied Denmark. ergo, we occupied Greenland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423

The map stretches the truth to its limits.

Britain occupied Iceland in WWII. Iceland and Greenland were both nations in the Kingdom of Denmark at that time.

ergo, we occupied Denmark. ergo, we occupied Greenland.

Indeed. Iceland was independant I 1944. Not sure about Greenland!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424

What is the point of this,

Are we supposed to feel guilty,

Does Tony Blair want to apologise?

Looking around the UK today, we have quite obviously been invaded by people from everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425

What is the point of this,

Are we supposed to feel guilty,

Does Tony Blair want to apologise?

Looking around the UK today, we have quite obviously been invaded by people from everywhere.

Perhaps this is atonement for our past invasions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information