# Has your country ever invaded other country or been invaded?



## coconutpalm

China has a recorded history of about 6,000 years. In its long long history, it had invaded other countries or had many smaller countries as its tributary states. On the other hand, since 1840, China became a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country and China was to a large extent invaded. In the World War II, it was invaded by Japan. 
Nowadays, the political relationship between China and Japan is very bad. What is worse, many people in both countries loathe the other country.

Here arise my questions (a lot ):

Many countries have a history as invador or occupied territory (or both) of their neighbours. 

How has this coloured their subsequent relations?

Do you think that they have successfully put their history behind them and looked forward?

What actions are necessary, on a national and individual basis, for countries to put their past behind them and form a strong bond with each other?

What are examples of countries which have done this successfully?

How many years, or generations, does it take for countries to overcome their history?

Do they need outside assistance to achieve this? What sort of assistance?

To which point can this country be considered having "overcome this history", as an invador or an invadee? 

You can choose one specific question to answer, but please keep in mind that it's not an invitation to air old grievance. 

At last, I want to say "thank you" to Chaska, Emma and daoxunchang for providing me with excellent suggestions!


Edit: I edited my post according to CrazyIvan's suggestion.Thank you! And I apologize if my previous words, clearly missending my intention as planned, offend anyone.


----------



## oxazol

In Europe it is a bit different. We cannot care about this subjets because it could be madness. During 2000 years of history we have and have been invaded so many times by the neighbours that really we don't care this.
If you read the history of Europe only during the two last centuries (19-20th) you will see what I try to say.


----------



## Brioche

Every country has either been invaded or has invaded other countries.
Most countries have done both at some stage in their history.

Governments frequently encourage fear of their neighbours to distract the people's attention from internal problems.


----------



## maxiogee

This topic is very interesting, but is too 'current' for me to contribute to with any degree of certainty that I wouldn't raise the hackles of some people (and I'm not talking about panjandrum!)
The relationsips between Britain/the United Kingdom and Ireland are a tangled, complicated and fraught lot which cannot be answered in a series of replies to 8, 80 or even 800 questions.
I hope other Irish forer@s can be forebearing enough to avoid diving in feet first here.


----------



## Outsider

Portugal invaded and was invaded by many countries throughout history, but it was mostly all a long time ago. We don't really relate to such ancient events. The only recent example I can think of are the colonial wars in Africa and Asia (East Timor), which ended in 1974. Many people who fought in those wars are still alive. But since this is a case of invading, rather than being invaded, I don't think it's what you're asking for. 

If I may hijack the conversation just a little bit, why is the memory of the Japanese invasion of China still so strong in the minds of the Chinese? Many European countries were also invaded during World War II, but I don't think the French still feel any animosity towards the Germans because of that, today (though I'm not so sure about Eastern Europeans, who had it much worse). And are you sure that the Japanese give as much importance to that event as many Chinese seem to, nowadays?


----------



## coconutpalm

And that's what confuses me most when reading European history!
You seem not care about being invaded, but how about the two World Wars? 
And Napoleon?


----------



## coconutpalm

Outsider said:
			
		

> If I may hijack the conversation just a little bit, why is the memory of the Japanese invasion of China still so strong in the minds of the Chinese? Many European countries were also invaded during World War II, but I don't think the French still feel any animosity towards the Germans because of that, today (though I'm not so sure about Eastern Europeans, who had it much worse). And are you sure that the Japanese give as much importance to that event as many Chinese seem to, nowadays?


 
The Japanese government deliberately hides the facts from its people, but I believe they pay attention to it. As you know, the relationship between Korea and Japan is also bad due to the fact that Japan denies that it was playing invader. Rather, it emphasizes that it was also victim.

I think that's off-topic, so I will stop here. And I'd like to hear the opinions of our Japanese friends on this forum.


----------



## Outsider

coconutpalm said:
			
		

> You seem not care about being invaded, but how about the two World Wars?


Portugal had only a small (and ultimately counterproductive) participation in World War I, and was nominally neutral in World War II. We were never invaded during those wars.



			
				coconutpalm said:
			
		

> And Napoleon?


That was a very long time ago!


----------



## natasha2000

Outsider said:
			
		

> Many European countries were also invaded during World War II, but I don't think the French still feel any animosity towards the Germans because of that, today (though I'm not so sure about Eastern Europeans, who had it much worse).


 
Maybe because nazis did not treat in the same way French and Eastern Europeans. concentration camps were full of Jews in the first place, and then Slavs and other Eastern and Southern Europeans. Remember where were concentration camps located...

EDIT: Everything depends on the grade of atrocities committed during a bellic conflict. In my ex country, during the WWII there were many atrocities, and they were never forgotten, so, the desastrous result of this "memory" came 50 years later and brought even more atrocities....


----------



## pickypuck

coconutpalm said:
			
		

> And that's what confuses me most when reading European history!
> You seem not care about being invaded, but how about the two World Wars?
> And Napoleon?


 
All that is finished and happened long long time ago. I don't think we should care that a certain piece of territory was ever invaded although we are living in it nowadays (this is by chance) but of what the wars did to people... to avoid repeating those atrocities.

The other thing looks like nationalistish...

¡Olé!


----------



## coconutpalm

It seems that you have all had put the bitter history behind, and TIME seems to play the part. You forget it, and then it is long long time ago. 
BUT, many many victims still live today without receiving an apology from the Japanese government. That's why Chinese people don't want to forgive Japan. 
How do you think about this?
Germany apologized, doesn't it? However, human beings have a really long history, and invaders rarely apologized after defeated in the past. They just surrendered or retreated. It didn't take an "apology" for the invaded to forget the history. Do yout think it's due to the civilization of humans or what? And in today's world, does apology matter?

Note: I gave the example of Japan not to seek sympathy, but just give an example. I don't want to quarrel with anyone.


----------



## vince

Canadian territory has not been invaded in its entire history. Nor have we invaded anyone. But we are a small country isolated from everyone except the U.S. so that is understandable. However when we were a British colony there were a couple of wars between the British, French, and Americans on what is now Canadian soil.


----------



## vince

pickypuck said:
			
		

> All that is finished and happened long long time ago. I don't think we should care that a certain piece of territory was ever invaded although we are living in it nowadays (this is by chance) but of what the wars did to people... to avoid repeating those atrocities.
> 
> The other thing looks like nationalistish...
> 
> ¡Olé!


The problem is when countries deny their questionable acts to protect their own honor. When all parties admit wrongdoing and remorse for atrocities, people eventually forget about the conflict. But how would post WWII history have been different if West Germany denied that Germans had ever persecuted Jews and eastern Europeans beyond what is to be expected in a normal war? And if Adenauer, Brandt, and Kohl regularly paid visits to the graves of Nazi soldiers "to respect those who died for our country"? Do you think that countries in Europe would be so friendly to Germany today?

That is what is happening in East Asia. Japan only admits that there _was_ a war, and apologizes 'if they caused any harm', but they fail to recognize the
 atrocities they committed on civilians and POWs. And high-ranking government officials continue to visit graves where WWII soldiers are buried.


----------



## panjabigator

India, to my knowledge has never invaded anyone.  But, they have been invaded by pretty much everything.  Many people still hold a grudge.

I for one am annoyed whenever I discuss it, but I suck it up and get over it quickly.  Nothing can be done about it now...just hope for progress!


----------



## Outsider

panjabigator said:
			
		

> India, to my knowledge has never invaded anyone.


Well, there was the case of Goa, Damão and Diu, in the sixties, although I suppose that would take us into the muddy waters of what "invasion" means...


----------



## Etcetera

coconutpalm said:
			
		

> How has this coloured their subsequent relations?
> 
> Do you think that they have successfully put their history behind them and looked forward?
> 
> What actions are necessary, on a national and individual basis, for countries to put their past behind them and form a strong bond with each other?


Unfortunately, I just have no time for writing a looong answer to this, but I can think right now of a very good (seems to be good, at least!) example. 
It's Russian-Estonian/Latvian relationships. 
The point is that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonis joined the Soviet Union not so deliberately as some other countries do. In fact, in Latvia and Estonia people tend to think that their countries were actually _forced_ into the Soviet Union. So these three countries (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) were the first to leave the Union in 1991. But the decades of Soviet reign has left the most bitter feelings, and now Estonia and Latvia don't show much friendliness towards the Russians who still live in these countries. 
I don't know much about the actual situation in Latvia, but a friend of mine lives in Tallinn, and fron her words I know that Estonian government has introduced, for instance, a state exam in Estonian, which is absolutely obligatory...
Let alone the situation with the so-called Estonian Legion. It's really scary!


----------



## almostfreebird

coconutpalm:******** said:
			
		

>


 
I'm not going to say you are an agitator or propagandist,
but I thought this place was supposed to be for cultural discussion
and you are almost talking political things,
if you continue like this it's going to be very unhealthy
unless you are irrelevant to this direct topic (china vs. japan)
because it's a very current political issue.
And I don't want to be unhealthy here,
so I'm going to stay away from this thread.
I will read though if somebody post.


----------



## luis masci

Yeah, in 1982 my country Argentina, invaded UK. 
Well… as a matter of fact it was 2 small islands belonging to UK.
… and located about 10.000 miles from UK. 
…but only 400 miles from Argentina
….and situated on Argentinean sea. 
UK recuperated these islands after a short war.
Sorry, now I think about it, I’m not sure it was really what we can say properly an invasion.


----------



## panjabigator

I saw a great movie which discussed (in the background) the war over these islands...it was called "la guerra interna"


----------



## Fernando

Well, if I had to list the countries which have invaded Spain or those which have invaded Spain I would say that UNO countries would apply. 

To list only "permanent" situations:

Spain has invaded:

All American current nations (except Canada)
All W Europe, except England (we did a good try) and Scandinavia
All Maghreb
In Africa: Eq Guinea
In Asia: Philippines

Last time: Spain abandoned W Sahara in 1975

Spain has been invaded by:

All W Europe
All Maghreb + Arabs 

Last time: UK maintains Gibraltar. Before: Nap's invasion in 1808-12.


----------



## OCCASVS

We were the masters of Europe (Roman Empire under Traianus).
But we were also a people settled in hundreds of cities, counties, states and so on.

Up to the Second World War we got Ethiopia, Somalia, Libya, Eritrea in the Italian colonial empire.


----------



## LV4-26

Yes, my country was invaded in the 5th century....by my ancestors.


----------



## luis masci

coconutpalm said:
			
		

> Nowadays, the political relationship between China and Japan is extremely bad...
> ....As you know, the relationship between Korea and Japan is also bad.


Coconut, I’m surprised seeing how many “ethnic differences” you have in Asia.
And surely you’d be also surprised knowing most of my countrymen can’t differentiate Asians and call all people who have Asian appearance as “chino”.


----------



## Etcetera

luis masci said:
			
		

> And surely you’d be also surprised knowing most of my countrymen can’t differentiate Asians and call all people who have Asian appearance as “chino”.


The same thing with Russians.
Frankly, it was only at the University that I learned to differentiate Chinese and Korean people...


----------



## almostfreebird

luis masci said:
			
		

> most of my countrymen can’t differentiate Asians and call all people who have Asian appearance as “chino”.


 
By any chance, do you call Indio(native american) chino or chinito?


----------



## Hakro

Etcetera said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, I just have no time for writing a looong answer to this, but I can think right now of a very good (seems to be good, at least!) example.
> It's Russian-Estonian/Latvian relationships.
> The point is that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonis joined the Soviet Union not so deliberately as some other countries do. In fact, in Latvia and Estonia people tend to think that their countries were actually _forced_ into the Soviet Union. So these three countries (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) were the first to leave the Union in 1991. But the decades of Soviet reign has left the most bitter feelings, and now Estonia and Latvia don't show much friendliness towards the Russians who still live in these countries.
> I don't know much about the actual situation in Latvia, but a friend of mine lives in Tallinn, and fron her words I know that Estonian government has introduced, for instance, a state exam in Estonian, which is absolutely obligatory...
> Let alone the situation with the so-called Estonian Legion. It's really scary!


 It's good to see (once again) that the present generation in Russia admits that the Soviet Union in fact invaded the Baltic countries at the end of WW2. The only one of these small nations that stayed independent were the Finns. But we had to give an important part of our small country to the largest country of the world. That's why many Finns (more or less hidden) hate or despise the Russians, even if the invasion wasn't a fault of the Russian people but the communist system.
On the other hand, Finns and Russians had reasonably good relations during the Russian occupation 1809-1917. And we're only a little bit suspicious about the Swedes who kept us under their power for more than six centuries.
_"How many years, or generations, does it take for countries to overcome their history?"_ I'd say at least four generations, a hundred years, maybe more. An invader can forget sooner, the invaded much later. Some people never forget. Maybe some of them are right, like the Jews.


----------



## luis masci

almostfreebird said:
			
		

> By any chance, do you call Indio(native american) chino or chinito?


No, not really. Some people use to call "chinita/chinito" to children. It’s rather a pejorative way to call them. But that have not a real relation with Asian people at all.


----------



## Etcetera

Hakro said:
			
		

> It's good to see (once again) that the present generation in Russia admits that the Soviet Union in fact invaded the Baltic countries at the end of WW2. The only one of these small nations that stayed independent were the Finns. But we had to give an important part of our small country to the largest country of the world. That's why many Finns (more or less hidden) hate or despise the Russians, even if the invasion wasn't a fault of the Russian people but the communist system.
> On the other hand, Finns and Russians had reasonably good relations during the Russian occupation 1809-1917. And we're only a little bit suspicious about the Swedes who kept us under their power for more than six centuries.


Hi Hakro,
you know, I'm actually learning Finnish as my minor. And this Christmas I saw a Finnish film (don't remember it's title, unfortunately) set up at the beginning of the 20th century. I must admit that at first this film seemed to me almost an Anti-Russian one; imagine how surprised I was when - it was by the end of the movie - I realised that in fact it wasn't Anti-Russian! On the contrary, the film was really friendly...

It's so sad to hear that many Finns hate Russians! I'm sure that most Russians don't approve the Soviet policy of expantion. I myself strongly dislike the Communists, and I am sure that the Communist rule didn't do any good for my country - as well as for other countries!


----------



## emma42

Evidently, memories of invasion will fade with time - I cannot say I hold a grudge against the French for the Norman Conquest, for example.

Equally, invasions which have happened within the lifetimes of living people, which have not been the subject of apology, must inevitably affect the people of the invaded country, particularly if atrocities were committed (as happens in most conflicts - atrocity perhaps being a subjective word). 

So, I do think that Coconutpalm makes a valid point about the Japanese government. The perception, indeed, belief here in Britain is that the Japanese government is behaving insensitively in the extreme about the invasion of China.

Almostfreebird, please do not feel personally offended about this. I, for one, would like to hear your opinion very much. Are you saying that anything has been said that is untrue, either in this post or any other in this thread? Please be assured that nobody wants to argue or fight, but to discuss and to understand.


----------



## Fernando

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Yes, my country was invaded in the 5th century....by my ancestors.



So, your ancestors have survived Vikings/Normans, English, Frenchs (rest of, of course), and Germans.


----------



## Hakro

Etcetera said:
			
		

> It's so sad to hear that many Finns hate Russians! I'm sure that most Russians don't approve the Soviet policy of expantion. I myself strongly dislike the Communists, and I am sure that the Communist rule didn't do any good for my country - as well as for other countries!


 I wish you understood that the Finns who are against the Russians are in fact against the Soviet Union, not against ordinary Russian people.


----------



## emma42

I understand that Hakro. Just as I know that people after WW2 came to understand that they had been fighting against the Nazis and not ordinary Germans, many of whom settled in this country, having been prisoners of war.

The football matches on Christmas Day during WW1 are one of the most touching examples of the realisation of common humanity during conflict.


----------



## tonyray

The US invasion of Mexico in 1848 has definitely created mistrust between Mexicans and Americans. 

What is now the US (and belonged to Native Americans) was invaded by settlers from England, France, Spain along with the Dutch and other Western Europeans (if you consider that an "invasion.") 

Britain attempted to invade the US in the War of 1812 but ultimately were unable to break through American defences.


----------



## Etcetera

Hakro said:
			
		

> I wish you understood that the Finns who are against the Russians are in fact against the Soviet Union, not against ordinary Russian people.


I did understand that. Hope the relationships between our countries will be as friendly as possible.


----------



## french4beth

tonyray said:
			
		

> What is now the US (and belonged to Native Americans) was invaded by settlers from England, France, Spain along with the Dutch and other Western Europeans (if you consider that an "invasion.")


Yup, I consider that an invasion, considering that it is generally accepted that Native Americans have been on this continent for at least 10,000 years (if not more), as compared to more recent European settlers. 

Throughout the last couple of centuries, Native American children were forcibly removed from reservations that tribes had been relocated (sometimes forcibly) to different locations under legislation such as the _Indian Removal Act_ of 1830. 


> Whether toddlers or teens, they were taken from home and shipped thousands of miles to dreary barracks. Their hair was cut, they were given new names, and each was assigned a number. The United States government began this brutal attempt at social engineering in 1879. Breaking rebellious Indians by indoctrinating their children in Anglo ways was considered a cost-effective alternative to war. But the personal cost to Native Americans was incalculable…​


Found here: http://www.civilrightsteaching.org/Handouts/EachSchoolHadaGraveyard.pdf

Since many former students are still alive & were permanently traumatized, it'll definitely take a while to get over what was done to them.


----------



## Hakro

emma42 said:
			
		

> Evidently, memories of invasion will fade with time - I cannot say I hold a grudge against the French for the Norman Conquest, for example.
> 
> Equally, invasions which have happened within the lifetimes of living people, which have not been the subject of apology, must inevitably affect the people of the invaded country, particularly if atrocities were committed (as happens in most conflicts - atrocity perhaps being a subjective word).
> 
> So, I do think that Coconutpalm makes a valid point about the Japanese government. The perception, indeed, belief here in Britain is that the Japanese government is behaving insensitively in the extreme about the invasion of China.


Dear Emma, as you have lived neither the Norman Conquest in England nor the Japanese Occupation in China, where's the difference? Why do you hold a grudge against the Japanese but not against the French? Please explain!


----------



## emma42

How rude.  Kindly point out where I have written that I "hold a grudge" against the Japanese.


----------



## Fernando

No rudeness at all. You have suggested there is a difference for the lapse of time passed since 1066 and then you say that Chinese government "has a point". As a matter of fact I agree with your point, but Hakro is neither rude nor is reading too much between the lines.


----------



## emma42

I have made it quite clear that the issue I have with the Japanese government is the lack of an apology,(post 29) let alone reparations. And I consider it up to me whether or not I find another forero rude.


----------



## Outsider

Question: have the governments of Germany and Italy ever issued an _official apology_ for World War II?


----------



## tonyray

Well, I don't think that a grudge against the Japanese was mentioned above. I think the key word here is "apology" in the sense that Japan has never formally apologised for the atrocities committed during it's occupation of China but has, however, apologised for the atrocities committed against the Korean people. Japan will probably never make an apology to China nor will Britain make an apology to Ireland. Besides, I think Emma was just pointing out the general consensus and perception in Britain of the Japanese insensitivity in regard to the issue.


----------



## Fernando

I think yes. I am quite certain for Holocaust. German presidents have, from time time, travel to Israel to visit memorials and have paid reparations (not to the demanded amounts).


----------



## almostfreebird

emma42 said:
			
		

> Almostfreebird, please do not feel personally offended about this. I, for one, would like to hear your opinion very much. Are you saying that anything has been said that is untrue, either in this post or any other in this thread? Please be assured that nobody wants to argue or fight, but to discuss and to understand.


 
I'm not a specialist in history, politics, tactics, economics and all those things are involved in this issue.
So if you're interested in hearing from me about that, you can't expect much from me.
And you know what you read in newspaper or watch on TV is not always true even in free (democratic) country.

All I can say now is:
I dislike communism.
I dislike nationalism.
I dislike militarism.
I dislike the liar.
I dislike the brainwashing(to a greater or lesser degree)


----------



## Outsider

Fernando said:
			
		

> I think yes. I am quite certain for Holocaust. German presidents have, from time time, travel to Israel to visit memorials and have paid reparations (not to the demanded amounts).


What about other countries, besides Israel? E.g., did they ever apologize to Spain for Guernica? (A little prior to WWII, I know...)


----------



## LV4-26

Just a precision. If you think I'm not correct, feel free to contradict me if you wish.

The Normans and the French (at the time of the Norman Conquest) were two different people and two different states. The Normans originally came from Norway and Danemark. That's why they were called the North men (and later Normans). They settled down in Neustria (that later came to be called Normandy, the land of the North men) which was given to them (in fiefdom) by the carolingian king Charles III in order to stop them invading his kingdom. The Normans and the French fought several battles between each other. They were sometimes allies, sometimes ennemies. Finally Normandy was conquered by the French king Philippe Auguste in 1203.

In 1066 Britain was conquered by the duke of Normandy William the Conqueror who was in no way a Frenchman. 
Normandy is now a part of France. But between 911 and 1203 they were two completely different states.


----------



## Fernando

Outsider said:
			
		

> What about other countries, besides Israel? E.g., did they ever apologize to Spain for Guernica? (A little prior to WWII, I know...)


The source is not very sure, but I think yes. I had to ask for it, I did not know.

http://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/guernica/glevel_1/1_bombing.html


----------



## Hakro

emma42 said:
			
		

> How rude.  Kindly point out where I have written that I "hold a grudge" against the Japanese.


  Dear Emma,


  I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. I just tried to find a logic in your thinking: _"I cannot say I hold a grudge against the French for the Norman Conquest"_, an a little later _"the Japanese government is behaving insensitively in the extreme about the invasion of China"_. This gave me an impression that you are not against the French but you are against the Japanese. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.


----------



## Fernando

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Just a precision. If you think I'm not correct, feel free to contradict me if you wish.



You are more than exact. It only surprised me you said in 5th century your ancestors arrived to Normandy.

I only pointed out:

- Norman conquest.
- English conquest (Henry V) during the Hundred Years war
- German conquest (1940). I am unsure about 1870. I think Normandy was not affected.
- To a point Normandy invasion 1944 was also an invasion (with French troops, of course).
- As you have poointed out the recoveries of Normandy by France (in 1206 and 1453 (?)) was "invasions" since they were two different states (Normandy was united to England). I notice that the 2nd case (HY War) is more a reconquer than an invasion.
- i think Normandy was not affected by invasions of France from Belgium by German emperors, Spanish, Austrian and English troops.


----------



## tonyray

Fernando said:
			
		

> You are more than exact. It only surprised me you said in 5th century your ancestors arrived to Normandy.
> 
> - To a point Normandy invasion 1944 was also an invasion (with French troops, of course)


 
Fernando, I would just like to point out that the D-Day invasion on June 6, 1944 on the beaches of Normandy was carried out by American, British, Canadian and Australian troops; not by French troops, the French troops came into action when the Allied troops (American, British, Canadian, Australian) had retaken control of Normandy. 

Saludos


----------



## Seana

Hi,
Polish history was the one of most complicated political situation existed in our part of Europe for ages.
Poland was both aggressor country and an occupied one. 
Early history from 1386 as Commonwealth of the Polish-Lithuanian Union was one of the largest and most populous states in Europe. In one time the 16th century, Poland was the largest state in Europe after Russia. It covered the territories of Poland and Lithuania, but also the entire territory of Belarus, a large part of Ukraine, and Latvia, and the Western part of today's Russia.
Polish language was once a lingua franca in various regions of cenral and Eastern Europe for over two centuries.
In 1772, Austria, Russia and Prussia agreed on the First Polish Partition
*In 1795, the Third Polish Partition wiped Poland off the map.*
After more than a century of rule by its neighbours Poland regained its independence in 1918 which was broken by II Word War in 1939 -1945 afterward comunism fettering - 1989 - liberation and democracy again.
As a result of those facts Polish people have a tremendous national identity, patriotism, sentimentality, attachment for the past history etc. But look, how many enemies we would have.
I think Poles are very friendly, delicate people and in everyday life don't remember all national wrongs. But in deep heart our national injury and suffered wouds still exist it couln'd be different and in my opinion it will be taken many time perhaps at least few generations to be forgot all.
But on the one condition - politicians from all countries never used them for their private interests


----------



## LV4-26

Fernando said:
			
		

> You are more than exact. It only surprised me you said in 5th century your ancestors arrived to Normandy.


Slight misunderstanding due to the location mentionned in my profile. As a matter of fact, I only came to live in Normandy in 1987. I'm not from here (father from the North of France and mother from the Bordeaux area). So when I mentionned my ancestors in the 5th century, I was referring to the Francs, who arrived in France then, not the Normans. 
But, who knows, I may also be a descendant of Gauls or Romans (other invaders).


----------



## LV4-26

tonyray said:
			
		

> Fernando, I would just like to point out that the D-Day invasion on June 6, 1944 on the beaches of Normandy was carried out by American, British, Canadian and Australian troops;


 And also some Polish and French troops (commandant Kieffer's commando at Ouistreham). Plus an even smaller number of Belgian, Dutch and Norwegian troops. Granted, those didn't "carry out" the invasion, they just participated to it.

Are you sure about the Australian troops? I've never seen them mentionned.


----------



## tonyray

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> And also some Polish and French troops (commandant Kieffer's commando at Ouistreham). Plus an even smaller number of Belgian, Dutch and Norwegian troops. Granted, those didn't "carry out" the invasion, they just participated to it.
> 
> Are you sure about the Australian troops? I've never seen them mentionned.


 
Hi! 

Yes, about 3,000 Australian troops participated and 14 were killed on June 6, 1944.  here's the link:
http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/remembering1942/dday/index.asp


----------



## LV4-26

tonyray said:
			
		

> Hi!
> 
> Yes, about 3,000 Australian troops participated and 14 were killed on June 6, 1944.  here's the link:
> http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/remembering1942/dday/index.asp


Thank you. I didn't know that.


----------



## tonyray

No problem. I didn't know that Polish troops participated in the D-Day invasion, but now I know!


----------



## diegodbs

> I'm not a specialist in history, politics, tactics, economics and all those things are involved in this issue.
> So if you're interested in hearing from me about that, you can't expect much from me.
> And you know what you read in newspaper or watch on TV is not always true even in free (democratic) country.
> 
> All I can say now is:
> I dislike communism.
> I dislike nationalism.
> I dislike militarism.
> I dislike the liar.


 
Your points of view about communism, anarchism, lies or truth are important and valuable. Those points of view seem to have nothing to do with the question: *Has your country ever invaded other country or been invaded? *

One doesn't need to be a specialist in history, politics, tactics or economics to know whether one's own country has ever invaded another country or has been invaded. It is as simple as "no" or "yes", and if "yes" how many times did it happen, the names of the countries we invaded or the names of the countries that invaded us. The reasons behind those invasions are open to discussion, but not the fact.

I know nothing about military tactics and I dislike liars as well but I know (mainly by reading History books, since I was not there) that a French army invaded Spain and that Spaniards invaded America or the Philippines.

Do I agree with those invasions? No.
Was my country invaded? Yes.
Did we invade other countries? Yes.

You are free to answer those questions or not.


----------



## almostfreebird

diegodbs said:
			
		

> It is as simple as "no" or "yes",


 
I just answered the question by emma42 and I couldn't answer that with only yes and no.
And my post exist in the whole context(threads).


----------



## emma42

Hakro.  Thank you for your explanation.  I'm sorry I misunderstood you.


----------



## emma42

Almostfreebird, it is so true that not everything one reads in the media even in a "free democratic country" cannot always be trusted.  That is why it is so important to have a Forum like this in which we can ask people we have come to know and trust, to a greater or lesser extent, what they think about issues.  Would you let us know what things you think others may have read in newspapers etc are not true and tell us your view on these matters?  I only ask, you know you are free to decline.  I am just very very interested.


----------



## cyanista

The Japaneze government did issue numerous apologies, as follows from this article. The author expresses his doubts about their sincerity but that's another thing.


----------



## tonyray

Does a "free democratic country" REALLY exist or is it just a myth? 

Wow, interesting to note in that article that now after having apologised 18 times, the history books in Japan will be rewritten to put the darkest pages of it in the past.


----------



## vince

As I said in an earlier post, Japan has only apologized "for any harm that was caused" as though it was just another conflict.

If you read the article, you will note:

"_In a procession of cases brought by groups including former prisoners of war, "comfort women", orphans and victims of germ warfare, there has been scant acknowledgement of their plight and no offers of compensation._"

Not to mention the regular visits to the shrine where many war criminals are buried.

Contrast this with Germany, where West German Chancellor Willy Brandt fell prostrate to his knees in front of a Holocaust memorial. Germany recognizes the crimes of its former government, the gas chambers, the medical experiments, the massacres of civilians, etc. The Japanese gov't refuses to acknowledge and apologize for any of these. Germany has also paid billions of dollars in direct compensation to victims, whereas Japan feels it has no obligations to under the San Francisco Treaty.


----------



## emma42

Thank you for the link, cyanista.  I do not agree that the author expressing "his doubts about their sincerity" is "another thing". It is highly germane. The reported apologies, contemporaneous with the disregard for people's plight and the honouring of the memories of war criminals, make any verbal apology null and void, surely?

Given the reparations made by, for example, Germany, it would seem that the rest of the world (certainly anywhere I can think of immediately) simply cannot understand the attitude of the Japanese government.  The link mentions that a large majority of respondents to a survey in Japan want more dialogue about the matter in apparent contrast to its government.  This begs the question of whether the government's reluctance is really a matter of culture, as many think.   Does the government adhere to/practise/live in a different culture from its people?


----------



## Pivra

How has this coloured their subsequent relations?

Thailand and Burma, they used to invade us sevaral times although none of their invasions were very successful but later, when the British were finding colonies in Asia, we helped the British to invade Burma. Now they are a very poor country and we despise them and lots of us look down on them. (Basically most of the Burmese people don't know that lots of Thais hate them for no particular reasons.)

Thailand (Siam, did. Thailand's never invaded anyone. lol) invaded the sultanates in the Malay Peninsula and weaker countries such as Cambodia and Laos like once every 100 years during the 13th until 17th centuries and our claim over Malaysia was finally ended only in 1901.

I don't think the Malay politicians and their leader like us very much. There are lots of politicians in Malaysia who want us to let Pattani become a Darus Salaam or a Sultanate state. I don't know if this is true, but lots of them support the militant groups in Pattani to liberate the 4 Muslim dominated, Jawi speaking provinces. Narathiwas, Pattani, Yala, and Stul.

If you go to Cambodia and take a tour in Angkor Wat, they will tell you how we burned the city and looted their wealth. They still hate us. 



Do you think that they have successfully put their history behind them and looked forward?

Yes, for Burma. No, for Thailand. Lots of us don't forgive them and we try to make the situation of their country worse and worse. (Again, although they don't remember anything anymore but we do.)

What actions are necessary, on a national and individual basis, for countries to put their past behind them and form a strong bond with each other?

We must change people's attitude.

What are examples of countries which have done this successfully?

America and the UK.

How many years, or generations, does it take for countries to overcome their history?

It has been more a few centuries now and we still hate them. It depends on people. 

Do they need outside assistance to achieve this? What sort of assistance?

No. If only 2 countries or 3 can't deal with their own problems, how could others achieve it?

To which point can this country be considered having "overcome this history", as an invador or an invadee? 

People don't talk their previous wars and don't hate each others without reasons. 




Do I agree with those invasions?
Our invasion of Burma during the late 1800s.... yes, it was for our own benefit and independency, if we did not, we would've not been the only uncolonized country in South and Southeast Asia.
Our invasion of the sultanates from the 1300s to 1600s,...yes, we just saw the fall of India, which is not so far across the Andaman Sea and felt threatened by Islam. The rise of Islam in among the Jawi and Malay speaking states was not what we want to see. 
Our invasion of the Khmer Empire..... yes, it was because of the wealth we took when we destroyed Angkor Wat that we used to build our cities. If we didn't, someone else will anyway.



I admit we did, and I feel no regrets that my ancestors'd invaded other countries. It was all for those who will live after their death. How could I feel bad and unthanksful to what they sacrificed they lives for us?


----------



## emma42

Pivra, thank you for that interesting post.  But why do you think that outside assistance could not help these "2 or 3 countries" to start to resolve their differences.  Mediators and impartial outsiders have done this sort of thing for centuries, from countries to individuals.  Often with success.


----------



## Tensai

vince said:
			
		

> That is what is happening in East Asia. Japan only admits that there _was_ a war, and apologizes 'if they caused any harm', but they fail to recognize the
> atrocities they committed on civilians and POWs. And high-ranking government officials continue to visit graves where WWII soldiers are buried.


 
in fact, most Japanese history textbooks in schools only talk about the war for just 1,2 pages. some textbooks don't even mention, and some glorifies the invasion.


----------



## Pivra

emma42 said:
			
		

> Pivra, thank you for that interesting post. But why do you think that outside assistance could not help these "2 or 3 countries" to start to resolve their differences. Mediators and impartial outsiders have done this sort of thing for centuries, from countries to individuals. Often with success.


 
I don't know much about the history of mediation, but when the US became a country, who else were there to write the Declaration? Now, there is no political conflicts between the 2 countries because both the UK and the US solved thier own problems. France wasn't even invited when the Declaration was written. Everything was done between the two countries.


----------



## coconutpalm

If any of you has ever had a look at my other posts in other threads, you can see clearly that I am not anti-Japanese, I'm anti-Japanese government. 
Two or three days ago, I watched a moving movie for a second time. It was set in China, several days before August 15, 1945, the unconditional surrender of Japan. Interestingly enough, the leading parts are of three nationalities: a rescued Chinese POW previously in Japanese camp, whose mother was killed in his face by a Japanese soldier, a Russian soldier, and a Japanese girl whose boyfriend was forced into the army by the end of the war. 
What the movie mainly tells us is that the people from the invaded country are definitely victims, and at the same time, the people from the invading country can be victims, but the wrongdoings can never be denied! 

Today's Japanese government stresses only on Hiroshima, but tries to forget the Nanjing massacre (300,000 deaths in 6 weeks) and many of its people, including those politicians pick up the idea that Japan was actually saving Chinese people. Hahaha! What a ridiculous joke!

Am I being emotional again? Yes, I think so. I am trying to answer my own questions in the opening post:
China invaded many other countries. Etcetera should remember the YUan dynasty. 
China was invaded by many other countries from 1840 to 1949.
Without a sincere apology, I don't think Chinese people can ever forget the bitter history and can forgive.
More and more sensible people in China are appealing both peoples to discuss the historical events in a sensible, sincere and understanding way, but they are not saying that "Hey, you can just forget it! it's the easiest way." I am for these people. When I post in the local forums, I always try my best to analyze, to be sensible, to tell my fellow people not to be over-emotional but practical.

Almostfreebird, I am not an agitator or a propagandist. Nor was I brainwashed. I am not a communist but I definitely love my country. I am just stating the truth. I am 19 years old, I am trying to be sensible, can you cool down, and stop thinking that I am attacking you and your fellow citizens?


----------



## emma42

Very well said, coconutpalm.  You have clearly expressed your views and have not been offensive, in my view.  You most certainly do not appear as an agitator or propagandist, but simply as someone who genuinely wants to put the past behind her, but needs the cooperation of the other party in order to do so.  I am pleased to hear about both the people in China who want to discuss the matter, and the people in Japan who took part in the survey in the link so kindly provided for us.


----------



## Tensai

emma42 said:
			
		

> I have made it quite clear that the issue I have with the Japanese government is the lack of an apology,(post 29) let alone reparations.


 
i don't care about whether give China reparations or not, all i want is a sincere formal apology from the Japanese government, and state the truth of history (as close as possible) in their history textbooks

when we were kids, if we did something bad, we would get spanked by our mothers, so that we remember not to do something like that again. however, Japan does not seem to remember, or want to remember their faults, it is very dangerous for Japan if they continue to hold this attitude, a person who does not remember the lessons he got, is likely to make the same mistakes again.


----------



## panjabigator

Didnt the Opium wars between China and Britain lead to an "invasion" of China by the British?


----------



## coconutpalm

Yes, panjabigator. We generally consider Britain the first invadors. But why don't we hate Britain, America, Germany,Russia,France,etc., but we do hate Japan? Isn't it intersting? All the countries above except Japan truly admit their mistakes in the past.
As tensai pointed out, what we want is just a sincere apology. If a country doesn't learn something from its past wrongdoings, it's dangerous both for others and itself.


----------



## danielfranco

Ah, Mexico... It stands as a solitary figure in the sense that it has never carried out a successful invasion 
(as far as I know, but how far is that, really? No one knows...) 
The one country I am sure that Mexico did try to invade was the erstwhile Republic of Texas. Then, enter Sam Huston. Remember the Alamo, and all that jazz...
Back in its pre-Colombus history, the nations within what is now known as central Mexico would invade each other every other Tuesday, it seems, never holding the territories for long... Until the Aztecs (Mexicas) arrived in the scene and "smooshed" everyone else and imposed their order, there was no Mexico. The Aztecs invented Mexico. And then the Spanish came and "smooshed" them into oblivion....
I think that, even now, the defeatist and despondent attitude prevalent in many areas of the Mexican culture (mainly the State) might be traced back to the very definite Spanish conquest and almost obliteration of the Mexicans over five hundred years ago.


----------



## panjabigator

Are the native/indigenous Mexicans still upset over their losses?


----------



## cuchuflete

As I read the sincere statements in this thread, questions occur to me, and I don't have good or comfortable answers:

1- If politicians are insincere, as most seem to be, can they give sincere apologies?
2- Does it matter if a politician feels genuine remorse for the actions of those who lived, and often died, before his or her birth?
3- Can one apologize sincerely and usefully for the actions of other people?
4- If young people today feel aggrieved by the actions of others, two or three or more generations ago, should they look for apologies from those who caused the offense, or from the children and grandchildren and great grandchildren of the wrongdoers?
5-Should citizens of an invaded country look to the descendents of the invaders for honest apologies, when that same invaded country has invaded, and continues to occupy other nations?  Is there a need for equal sincerity by all?
6- Why does a government deny history?  Why does it allow children to be taught things that are not true?

Obviously some of these questions might be applied to China and Japan, but they could also be applied to my own country.
I am not interested in fomenting a polemic in favor of any government here.  I mistrust most politicians.  

There may be deep cultural differences in perception of the importance of these questions.  Some of my ancestors were murdered by a government in another country.  I would take no satisfaction if the current government of that country were to apologise.  That wouldn't reverse the murders.  It wouldn't speak to the feelings or the indifference of current inhabitants of that country.  It would, for me, provide no justice and no
recompense.  The only thing I would wish for is education of the current generation, in order that such horrors not be repeated.

Some many years ago, the government of my own country was fully responsible for the murder of some of my children's ancestors.  A later government apologised.  That did nothing to undo the past.  It may have helped change the way history is taught here.  That I applaud.


----------



## emma42

I think the point is, in relation to Japan, that the government is not simply ignoring the past, but is _actively_ compounding the offence by teaching untruths and part-truths, denying any wrongdoing and paying homage to the memories of war criminals.


----------



## coconutpalm

I don't think the still living and suffering "comfort women" can ever forgive those that raped them, but a sincere apology from their offsprings do matter and help.
Does it matter if a politician feels genuine remorse for the actions of those who lived, and often died, before his or her birth?
Yes, it matters. Whenever I read the report about the Germany prime minister that got down to his knees to apologize, I am deeply moved and loathe even more the current Prime minister of Japan.

Can one apologize sincerely and usefully for the actions of other people?
Yes, I think so. A Japanese monk travelled alone for two years to sites where Japan had done the most cruel things to Chinese, knelt down, and prayed. Great man!

If young people today feel aggrieved by the actions of others, two or three or more generations ago, should they look for apologies from those who caused the offense, or from the children and grandchildren and great grandchildren of the wrongdoers?
Traditionally, we think so. We even seeked revenge. Today most of us think it silly things, but what we want is just an "apology"!

Why does a government deny history? Why does it allow children to be taught things that are not true?
I don't know. Ask Koitsumi.


----------



## emma42

I fear I am stepping into dangerous territory here and I have very little knowledge about these things, but I would like to ask, with the greatest of respect, whether the reluctance of the Japanese government to apologise sincerely is due to a sense of what some might call "honour" or the cultural imperative to never admit wrong?

This is a sincere question and not an accusation.


----------



## coconutpalm

Yes, it's a dangerous question 
Actually, I believe the Orient people are all less inclined to admit wrong, at least in public. Although traditionally, we are taught not to tell lies and apologize whenever you FEEL you have hurt/offend others, we are also deeply influenced by the "save face" norm.
As for Japan, I think it's more complicated. They have their Bushi tradition, they were defeated in the World War, they think they were invaded by America after the War, many of them were/are taught that the old Japan was saving Chinese and Koreans, they have a really amazing recovery and Japan is one of the richest and strongest countries in the world...
Again, I am not a Japanese. I can't speak for them.

As I said before, China invaded many countries in the past, too. However, when I refer to materials, I find that we willingly admit it rather than deny it. 
Then again, in those materials, I sense a "dismissive" air. NOt that we are not aware of the sufferings of the invaded countries, just that ... hard to say. I will try to state my ideas as clearly as possible: 
The invador tend to forget the history more easily than the invaded. However, if the invador are defeated, it's most likely that both parties keep remembering the bitter past and hating each other.
Deadlock. 
Deadlock?
Deadlock!


----------



## almostfreebird

emma42 said:
			
		

> I fear I am stepping into dangerous territory here and I have very little knowledge about these things, but I would like to ask, with the greatest of respect, whether the reluctance of the Japanese government to apologise sincerely is due to a sense of what some might call "honour" or the cultural imperative to never admit wrong?
> 
> This is a sincere question and not an accusation.


 
I don't have much knowledge either and I don't want to talk like a glib, so I put some useful link.
How about "*A* *New definition of hypocricy*"?
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/china.html


----------



## emma42

I understand what you are saying, almostfreebird, and thank you for the links.  I am just learning about these matters.


----------



## MarcB

I admit before hand that I am trying to compress many thoughts into as brief a form as possible so I hope any lack of continuity does not trouble anyone nor do I wish to offend anyone by my post.
So many countries have invaded and been invaded. It is only a recent phenomenon for countries to apologize for past atrocities. It is not uncommon for countries to”bury the hatchet” even without an apology. The many conflicts Western Europe’s conquest of various parts of the Americas, Africa and Asia seem long ago but the legacy remains. “To the victor goes the spoils” and also the victor writes the history. Has Turkey apologized to the Armenians? To some Turkish eyes the Armenians in Turkey helped the enemy Russia in that conflict.
Has China apologized to the Uyghur (Eastern Turkistan), The Tibetans, etc.? Korea and Japan still dispute some unpopulated islands as their territory for fishing rights. Russia and Japan dispute other islands. The communist rule throughout Eastern Europe and Asia and their successors have not apologized. The WWII conflict not only has people in Slavic countries who still hold a grudge talk to people who were alive at that time in the west, there are still people who hold a grudge. Okinawa which was invaded and occupied by Japan as a result of a request by the Okinawans to stop a Chinese invasion was then held by the US from the end of WWII until the 1970s, with much ado Jimmy Carter “returned Okinawa to Japan” In the US the native population was decimated and the promises to them were always broken, Africans were enslaved, many Europeans were indentured servants and later discriminated against not only people of other colors. The Japanese Americans were put in internment camps, There was discrimination against the Jews and Irish. Fortunately much if not most of these injustices have been corrected, unfortunately some of this legacy remains although it is no longer sanctioned by the government and it is in the process of constant improvement. As for the Japan-China-Korea issue. One needs to take into account, although as we all know atrocities were committed, what the average Japanese person believes about this dark history and the general attitude of the people at that time. The Meiji dynasty (1868-1912) was the main unification of modern Japan it was at this point that Japan ended its isolation from the rest of the world. The Japanese began to immigrate to Brazil, the US, Peru among other places. The Emperor took on a godlike importance and people felt an almost religious fervor of patriotism.
European colonization was still in full force at the time of WWII. The leaders of Japan lead the people to believe that they were liberating Asia from the “evils” of European control. Of course the Philippines, China, Korea and the Solomon Islands among others may not share this point of view. Also the 武士道 Bushido code which among other things calls for suicide before dishonor is a factor for a country that, was defeated (unconditional surrender) given a constitution written by the Americans and the prohibition against forming a viable army ( as I look at my souvenir ashtray labeled made in occupied Japan). Some Americans still remember the 25 mile death march to Bataan yet Japan is the US’ closest ally in Asia. Just a note the 武士道 Bushido code started after Japan’s unsuccessful war with Tang Dynasty China and Silla (part of current Korea).I think and hope that we can all bury the hatchet with or without an apology. In War and invasions all parties are victims.


----------



## coconutpalm

I think and hope that we can all bury the hatchet with or without an apology. In War and invasions all parties are victims.
Totally agree. And I have said such things in my previous posts.
However, if you don't cure the old trauma, can you really start a new life? I really doubt it, let alone that we are not just talking about two countries. We are talking about people Those living "Comfort women" and pre-POWs in the World War II are too old and weak to start a new life. Their last desire is a simple but sincere apology.
The apology thing emerges only recently and there are many many political and economical factors working. True. But things that are not traditional are not necessarily bad.

BTW, I will not comment on the link provided by Almostfreebird because it's off-topic, but I reserve my right to depise such a politically-biased website.

Edit: not to have you misunderstand me.


----------



## Pivra

I actually don't want to join this WWII miniature, but , Japan had no intentions to LIBERATE nobody from European colonization. Why did Japan INVADE THAILAND???????? Why? We aren't anyone's colony. Why? 


ps. This is just to some people who don't accept the fact that Japan didnt try to help anyone during WWII not all Japanese tho.


----------



## CrazyIvan

What a long thread, I read it through and decided to reply from all the begining, since I happened to have a little of knowledge about all these things.



			
				coconutpalm said:
			
		

> Nowadays, the political relationship between China and Japan is extremely bad. What is worse, the peoples in both countries HATE each other, or at least, loathe each other.


 
I would like to remind you that there are some very dangerous perception you had in these sentences, which actually frightened me while I read this.

The government relationship between China and Japan is extremly bad? 
you may say that the relationship between N. Korea and Japan is extremely bad. Or the relationship between Iran and America is extremely bad,or another example, Isareal and Palestanian. But China and Japan has some more delicated relationship.

Aside from this issue, Japanese business and government aid has been contribute their efforts in China, though they consider to suspend or decrease the amout. Two government with bad relationship cannot negotiate with some deals like that.( I mean, aides.)

I will assume, you government is trying hard to make people believe that you two have bad relationship, however, they are hiddenly the truth the Japan actually has benefited China at the same time.

The people in both country hate each other?

You can always find some exceptions in the public. My observation is that Chinese people have a lot to talk about this "hate" feelings but the Japanese do not talk little about it, or, they do not really have any particular And hate is such a strong word I would avoid. Also, you should consider what the cause of this "dislike" feeling is. I would do my brief summary and please correct me if you find the opposite.

Chinese, have disliked Japanese due to the history. 
I am happy to read from the following article that you limited your resentment feeling to Japanese Government, but not general Japanese people. 
But Japanese, the general "dislike" feeling to Chinese is against toward the Chinese immigrants(partially illegal) in Japan cities. They cause troubles that Japanese government can barely handled. 

Did you see the difference?


----------



## daoxunchang

Another reason given by some people to explain we Chinese's persistent request for a sincere apology is that we have "a persecution complex". This is just an outrageous accusation. Can the referring to what has "really" happened be fitted into this phrase "persecution complex", which according to dictionary.reference.com means "the feeling of being persecuted especially without basis in reality"? 
I believe most of you know about the phrase "Yellow Peril". We were dubbed this just because we have a really large population. How should we call this? I say I would not call this a persecution complex because it is understandable. But what's behind this and what this would lead to is most worrisome.


----------



## coconutpalm

Thanks for your post, Ivan.
I think I have made some of my points not as clear as intended. I apologize for that. 
Surely China and Japan are closely related, but that doesn't mean that the relationship between them are good, or near good, but I'm ready to admit that maybe "extremly" is a "extremly" strong word that I shouldn't have used it. ON the other hand, it's subjective to decide to which extent is the extreme end, isn't it. I will adopt your suggestion and change it to "very" later, though. Thank you.

The people in both country hate each other?
My fault, I should have said" the people in both country loathe the other country, not necessarily the people."

I will assume, you government is trying hard to make people believe that you two have bad relationship, however, they are hiddenly the truth the Japan actually has benefited China at the same time.
Not true. Many many people in the world know that the two countries have a bad relationship. 
And as I noted before, many of us are trying to be sensible, and natuarlly we know the fact that Japanese businesses contribute their effort to China's development, as other businesses from many other coutries. We thank them for that, but should we be grateful? Why don't they compensate the "comfort women" and previous POWs?

I am happy to read from the following article that you limited your resent feeling to Japanese Government, but not general Japanese people. 
I didn't "limit" my feeling. I have been having no personal dislike towards Japanese people, as you can see from my posts in this thread and many other threads as well. 

And you didn't answer my questions. Taiwan was invaded by Japan, and I know many Taiwaness feel close to it, including Chen Shuibian. Seemingly you overcome that history easily, so could you please tell me how and why? Thank you.


BTW, we generall think Taiwan is a province, not a country, but that's completely another issue.


----------



## CrazyIvan

Since you asked the following questions, I would like to answer briefly.

Yes, if you consider Taiwan as a entity, we have been invaded several times(Kidding:So good/bad that we never had a chance to invade someone )

Since the 16th century the Portugese discovered this island, we have constantly occupied by different western countries. Northern part belonged to Spanish and Southern part belong to Dutch. However, a Chinese general drove Dutch away and re-established a base (to against Ching Dynasty.) 

Ching Empire invade to destroy this small government again, and ruled it until the day they ceded Taiwan to Japan in 1895.

We Taiwanese held a series of uprising right after Japanese army landed on our island. In my county, we were pround of a hard fight cause the death of a Japanese royal member.

Of course, all these events had be quelled and the Japan started their occupation in Taiwan.

We have tried various way to against Japanese Occupation, especially the unreasonalbe laws and regualtion. The most success uprising is not through physical confrontation, but through the protest, demostration, and petition to the parlimant in Tokyo.( at that moment.)

I would like to set this as an example since Japan is the last invasion.( well, if KMT is another ivasion or not is highly debated, so, I would just finished here and start to answer your questions.)




> How has this coloured their subsequent relations?


 
The subsequent relations after Japanese leave this island have various changes. 



> Do you think that they have successfully put their history behind them and looked forward?


 
Yes, I do believe so.



> What actions are necessary, on a national and individual basis, for countries to put their past behind them and form a strong bond with each other?


 
I cannot say from national basis since I am neither political figures nor active in politic events. Yet, Taiwan, as a coutry or not, is still debatable, so, "national" since a far-fetched word for me.

However, from individual basis, I know a bit. At least, a frequent contact with your target nation is necessary. I used to dislike Japanese too, for those they have done to Taiwan. however, the more I learn about their history and culture, the more I can talk with Japanese people. The more I can talk to them, the more I think I can understand the way they act.

(For example, do you know that, in Japan, right before the war, there is a huge debate about, Should they start the war? The prime minister of that time is constantly changed and even some of them are assissinated by Japanese Army, who really wanted this war.)

This is an accumulated process, and it takes time. But if you hold the attitude that "I hate Japanese and I never would like to get contact with them." Then this efforts will never succeed.



> What are examples of countries which have done this successfully?





> How many years, or generations, does it take for countries to overcome their history?




I think most Taiwanese do not dislike Japanese anymore. That is three generation. From my grandpa to me.



> Do they need outside assistance to achieve this? What sort of assistance?


 
I have to say, Taiwanese people are born to be flexible and pragmatic, and this mentality truly help. 

No matters how great hatred we had in betwen Japan and Taiwan, we have put it aside and create economic development together. We therefore foster closer relationship in between. Plus, we both have American Army base on our territory during Korea and Vietnam war, which allow us to share a lot in common for the following generation.


----------



## coconutpalm

Ivan, you really hit the nail on the head: Contact each other!
It was unimaginable that we can peacefully discuss this issue in the past. However, now we want to settle the problem rather than continue living in hatred/dislike for each other. I think it should attribute to the more frequent contacts with each other.

But I have to differ with you somewhere:The more I can talk to them, the more I think I can understand the way they act.
True, but I can never understand the way they acted.

Thank you very much, Ivan. the posts seemed to getting off-topic because we are shifting our attention to Sino-Japan relationship, quite on the contrary to what I intended. I was considering to ask a Mod for help because my several attempts to reverse it didn't work.
Now I think we can continue this thread, peacefully.


----------



## CrazyIvan

I would like to further develop the topic into the recent turbulance in between KMT and DPP, the two major political parties in Taiwan. And cause of this is actually related to this topic.

While KMT army boarded on this island in 1945, people were happy that the Japanese had gone, however, due to the incompetence of the KMT governor, it happened an uprising called 228 incident in 1947. This conflicts tore up the relationshp in between local Taiwanese and newly-immigrant Chinese population and the effects remain to nowadays.

There have been three generations. We do not have direct victim of that incident in my family. However, I hear a lot of stories. I have to say, yes,from those stories, I can feel that people can hardly forget this kind of tragedy happening to their families, and can hardly forgive the "invader."

But, please be noticed, KMT has public apologized for thier wrong-doing. However, this sentiment is still linger over the island.

Why?

ok, in my generation, in my daily life, I do not care about where my friends' family came from. And, actually, my parents would not care where their colleague come from as well. Our political identity would only be show on the ballots in each election.

However, parties do believe that manipulation in this sentiment is beneficial, or say, necessary to polls. They tried all the best to heat up this topic, which remind people again and again and some of them just cannot walk out of that agony.

So, that is what I would like to point out. Be cautious about the news what the political parties/govenment/government-sponsored media trying to feed you. That is dangerous.


----------



## dahut

danielfranco said:
			
		

> Ah, Mexico... It stands as a solitary figure in the sense that it has never carried out a successful invasion
> (as far as I know, but how far is that, really? No one knows...)
> The one country I am sure that Mexico did try to invade was the erstwhile Republic of Texas. Then, enter Sam Huston. Remember the Alamo, and all that jazz...
> Back in its pre-Colombus history, the nations within what is now known as central Mexico would invade each other every other Tuesday, it seems, never holding the territories for long... Until the Aztecs (Mexicas) arrived in the scene and "smooshed" everyone else and imposed their order, there was no Mexico. The Aztecs invented Mexico. And then the Spanish came and "smooshed" them into oblivion....
> I think that, even now, the defeatist and despondent attitude prevalent in many areas of the Mexican culture (mainly the State) might be traced back to the very definite Spanish conquest and almost obliteration of the Mexicans over five hundred years ago.



Do you think that if the descendants of Aztecs would come back to light (metaphoric) from that so-called oblivion, they would apologize to the other pre-Colombus tribes descendants that they "smooshed"?

I don't think any country, state, nation, people can apologize non-stop for 100, 300 or 500 years. Said it once, take it and move on.
I don't think any Spaniard would go to France and expect them to apologize for the Napoleonic Wars.
If people are always attached to their past invasions (done or suffered)... There is no lesson learned. Just self-pity.


----------



## Foxynet

Hi ! 
here are just a few remarks.
To be totally honest, I never really learn about Napoleonic invasions (we talk about "Napoleonic _wars_"). I "only" learned about what was happening inside France at that time (such a mess ! no more time at school to learn about what was happening outside!). And so I recently realised, traveling through Europe, that Napoleon is seen like an invader, an oppressor. In France, he's the one that brought "progress" (ie Republic, stable institutions, laws,...). So it can be hard for (some) French to "apologize" for napoleon's expansion policy. 
And to talk about the consequence of invasion on current relation/situation : a French region, the Alsace-Lorraine, was French before the WW1, german between the two WW, and French again since WW2. The result is that it has a specific legal status, with adaptated laws, to take into account the german heritage. Though, I'm not from that region, so I don't know how the inhabitants _feel_ toward Germany.


----------



## LV4-26

Foxynet said:
			
		

> To be totally honest, I never really learn about Napoleonic invasions (we talk about "Napoleonic _wars_"). .


I did. And I don't feel at all responsible for what that filthy imperialist did 200 years ago.


----------



## emma42

I was about to type that I feel no guilt about the British Empire, just disgust.  But the fact is, my life is comfortable and materially rich, despite living on a low income, due to the fact that my ancestors (or, more likely, their bosses) stole the countries and bodies of others.  I don't feel guilt exactly, but I cannot deny that I feel something approaching embarrassment.


----------



## Neever

Fernando said:
			
		

> Spain has been invaded by:
> 
> All W Europe
> All Maghreb + Arabs


All of Western Europe?  I beg to differ, we haven't invaded anyone!  At least not in modern history - "Spain" has not been invaded by "Ireland".


----------



## Tatzingo

emma42 said:
			
		

> I understand what you are saying, almostfreebird, and thank you for the links.  I am just learning about these matters.


Emma42,

RE: http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/china.html

I'm no expert on these matters either but if i were you, I'd be very careful before taking this link's author's one sided opinion as fact. An excerpt:

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/china.html#chin0704

There is a claim that China annexed Hong Kong in 1997 and is seeking the same result with regards Taiwan.... (see edit)

If I remember my history, Hong Kong was Chinese territory annexed to the British at the end of the Opium wars, for a period close to 100 years. China didn't annex Hong Kong at all, rather, territory ceded/capitulated by them was restored to their government in 1997. 

I don't want to launch accusations but this one article sounds more like propanganda to me....

Tatz.

Edit. I had to delete the quotation as i have since found a copyright on the site concerned, so i have had to paraphrase it.


----------



## Fernando

Neever said:
			
		

> All of Western Europe?  I beg to differ, we haven't invaded anyone!  At least not in modern history - "Spain" has not been invaded by "Ireland".



Partially agreed. You were a part of British state most of time. As a sad way to save my pathetic and sweeping comment (well, Switzerland, Andorra and Austria has neither invaded Spain) I would say there is a legend about Celtics from Ireland migrating to Asturias and Galicia (NW Spain).


----------



## Tatzingo

Fernando said:
			
		

> Partially agreed. You were a part of British state most of time. As a sad way to save my pathetic and sweeping comment (well, Switzerland, Andorra and Austria has neither invaded Spain) I would say there is a legend about Celtics from Ireland migrating to Asturias and Galicia (NW Spain).



But it was a peaceful migration, not an invasion? And it is only legend, right?

Tatz.


----------



## Sallyb36

emma42 said:
			
		

> I was about to type that I feel no guilt about the British Empire, just disgust.  But the fact is, my life is comfortable and materially rich, despite living on a low income, due to the fact that my ancestors (or, more likely, their bosses) stole the countries and bodies of others.  I don't feel guilt exactly, but I cannot deny that I feel something approaching embarrassment.



I feel ashamed that we were such a nasty nation.  Yet somehow proud that although we are such a small country we managed to do what we did, but ashamed as well.  Definitely conflicting emotions!!


----------



## Neever

Fernando said:
			
		

> Partially agreed. You were a part of British state most of time. As a sad way to save my pathetic and sweeping comment (well, Switzerland, Andorra and Austria has neither invaded Spain) I would say there is a legend about Celtics from Ireland migrating to Asturias and Galicia (NW Spain).


Ok, I'll agree with the ancient history part - that _might _be true, but when we were part of the British state it was because we had been invaded ourselves!  I get very het up when I talk about that though, so I'm leaving my contribution there!


----------



## Outsider

Tatzingo said:
			
		

> But it was a peaceful migration, not an invasion?


How do you know it was peaceful?



			
				Tatzingo said:
			
		

> And it is only legend, right?


From what I've read it's a serious theory.


----------



## Fernando

Tatzingo said:
			
		

> But it was a peaceful migration, not an invasion? And it is only legend, right?
> 
> Tatz.


You are right. Anyway, Outsider use to be well informed. POssibly he has more data than me.

Well, obviously "peaceful" is difficult to know when talking about those old days. Possibly most of what we called "invasions" (as an example, Celtics moving to Iberian Peninsula) was mostly peaceful, while many migrations were performed with the weapons at hand.


----------



## emma42

Yes, Tatzingo (#96).  I was not taking everything as fact, do not worry.  I was simply thanking the forer@ for the link.


----------



## Outsider

Fernando said:
			
		

> You are right. Anyway, Outsider use to be well informed. POssibly he has more data than me.
> 
> Well, obviously "peaceful" is difficult to know when talking about those old days. Possibly most of what we called "invasions" (as an example, Celtics moving to Iberian Peninsula) was mostly peaceful, while many migrations were performed with the weapons at hand.


There's been a lot of discussion, and no consensus, over whether the so-called Indo-European invasion, for example, was an all-out invasion, complete with war and genocide, or a peaceful, gradual migration. I'm sure it's very difficult to be sure, after so much time.
I imagine that the same applies to the Celtic migrations (invasions?) We simply have little way of knowing.


----------



## ireney

Well let's see: Greece's history is not as long as China's but it's pretty long anyway (compared with many other countries' history at least).

It would be impossible not to have been in both ends of the stick so to speak.You can skip the history and go at the end if you like 

Oh and I apologise for any bad English. Still too hot and my brain feels melted and runny.

Ancient History first

We started by invading what is now called Greece  

We obviously shouldn't but then it's IS a bit difficult for all of us to actually find where we came from and go back there. Not to mention that there isn't anyone to apologise to for that invasion these days. 

Then we have the Greek city-states-colonies. I don't know if that counts as invasion since we were more interested in small pieces of land than the whole chunk. I do know that when we couldn't persuade the locals to sort of let us build one we forcefully 'persuaded' them. Once again, it's kind of hard to find the guys and apologise to them (not to mention that, in case such as i.e. Marseilles they are sort of proud it seems for the Greek 'beginnings of their town or so I'm told)

We then have the Persian wars. Now, in danger of getting ahead of my time-line, Greeks and Persians have been ateach others throats for simply ages (up to and including Middle Ages). 

Alexander the Great (and I know that could cause some trouble, but bear with me, even if you believe that ancient Macedonians were not Greek, Alexander attacked as head of the Greeks) invaded a LOT of countries. As far as I know we have apologised to Iran for the despicable way he behaved in Persepolis (or sort of: I seem to remember that when our President went to Iran and saw the ruins said something like "whoops! sorry").

Hellenistic times? We didn't invade further but we weren't all that nice either (see Jews)

All of this ended when we were terminally invaded by the Romans


Medieval Times

Byzantine Empire. What can I say? Invading and being invaded by pretty much everyone.

All of this ended when we were terminally invaded by the Ottomans (Turks)

Modern Times

Mainly invaded. We invaded only once (Balkan Wars is a bit of muddy so I won't go there). Just after WWI we had the brilliant idea to invade Turkey. Got our backsides really kicked. Nevermind what followed.
--------------------------
Now, as to hard feelings: Greece and Turkey. Lots and lots of bad blood there. Mainly between governments though. Hot heads exist in both countries I'm afraid. Nationalism is a global disease.

The reason is simple: Greece and Bulgaria i.e. who have have been at each other's throat ever since the ancestors of the Bulgarians first arrived in the neighbourhood have lately resolved all the issues between the two countries.

NO APOLOGY. I mean we'd be both buried under a pile of apologies if we had to say "sorry" for each time one of us committed atrocities to the other side. 

Turkey now. Well, we still have issues with Turkey. If they are ever resolved hard feelings will go away. If not they will persist. All the other reasons (attrocities etc etc) will soon go away. They have in other cases they will in this case too.


----------



## maxiogee

Fernando said:
			
		

> I would say there is a legend about Celtics from Ireland migrating to Asturias and Galicia (NW Spain).



a) Are we now regarding a "migration" as an invasion?
b) Are we now regarding "a legend" as factual source material?


----------



## Fernando

maxiogee said:
			
		

> a) Are we now regarding a "migration" as an invasion?
> b) Are we now regarding "a legend" as factual source material?



a) If you have read the thread, I have said before that the border between invasion and migration is not always clear.

b) I do not remember to have said so. But, incidentally, according Outsider, maybe it is not a legend.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Outsider said:
			
		

> There's been a lot of discussion, and no consensus, over whether the so-called Indo-European invasion, for example, was an all-out invasion, complete with war and genocide, or a peaceful, gradual migration.


Or simply an artefact of the belief of 19th century philologists that the only way languages could spread was for their speakers to do so. I've read that some believe there was no invasion/migration, but that the language just spread through contact.

Thymios


----------



## Outsider

An interesting argument, although how many languages do you know which spread purely through harmless contact before the Industrial Revolution?... Still, this is not the place to discuss the spread of Indo-European.

With respect to the Celts, what triggered my remark were episodes such as the following:



> It is clear that some British people migrated to the continent, which resulted in the region of Armorica in north-west Gaul becoming known as Brittany. There is also evidence of British migration to Hispania. The dating of these migrations is uncertain, but recent studies suggest that the migration from south-western Britain to Brittany began as early as AD 300 and was largely ended by 500. [...]
> 
> source


Granted, this late migration does not seem to have been too massive. On the other hand, it was not the first migration of Celts into Iberia, either (although the previous one seems to have originated in Central Europe, rather than the British Isles).


----------



## tvdxer

The U.S.

Been invaded?  I suppose you could call the War of 1812 an "invasion", maybe 9/11, but I think both would be a bit of a stretch.  Otherwise, no.

Invaded others?  Yup, Iraq most recently of course


----------



## GenJen54

almostfreebird said:
			
		

> Don't you remember You started (stirred).
> I can't help but think you are Fire Stirrters (by Stephen Edwin King).


 
There is no need for accusations or name-calling. Coconutpalm was not trying to stir anything. She was asking a simple question. Many forer@s have answered for the sake of their own countries, and have also pointed out what is stated as historical fact. Taking a harsh look at the shortcomings of our own countries and their histories is a necessary embarrassment, I'm afraid.

Accusatory finger-pointing only makes things worse.

This is a forum that is open to discussions of issues pertaining to many things - including politics.  Please see the CD Guidelines if you need further confirmation of this.

You have been offered many opportunities to explain your point of view and tell us why Coconutpalm is wrong. Doing such would be helpful to everyone as it would provide a level of *personal *insight we cannot find reading web links and editorials.

I am not proud of my country's history as an "invader," and the list of countries we've invaded, especially given my country's young age - is long, indeed. The fact remains, there are few countries who can remain blameless or innocent. The choice belongs to us whether we choose to carry resentment, or let the mistakes of our ancestors teach us valuable lessons about how we should carry on our own lives.


----------



## maxiogee

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> The fact remains, there are few countries who can remain blameless or innocent.



I'd doubt that.
Africa springs to mind, there are 53 countries there and few were into the invasion industry. 
Central and South America?


----------



## almostfreebird

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> This is a forum that is open to discussions of issues pertaining to many things - including politics. Please see the CD Guidelines if you need further confirmation of this.


 
I just expressed my feeling after that big smiling mark by somebody who started this arrested my attention.

ok. I leave here, thats my choice.


----------



## maxiogee

almostfreebird said:
			
		

> I'm not going to say you are an agitator or propagandist,
> but I thought this place was supposed to be for cultural discussion
> and you are almost talking political things,
> if you continue like this it's going to be very unhealthy
> unless you are irrelevant to this direct topic (china vs. japan)
> because it's a very current political issue.
> And I don't want to be unhealthy here,
> so I'm going to stay away from this thread.
> I will read though if somebody post.



My initial reaction to carefully studying this post, which I had skipped over at first glance, is "the truth often hurts".

Coconutpalm made no claims about the invasion of China by Japan in the Second World War, merely mentioning that it happened - and later mentioning that China itself invaded other countries also. If that is too "political" then that's unfortunate.

Then I began to wonder what almostfreebird meant by "I don't want to be unhealthy here" - that's not an expression one hears often. Surely we are mature enough here to discuss what were brief wartime events.

Yes, the observant amongst us will have noticed that I am not prepared to go into details myself about what transpired over many, many years between Ireland and our nearest neighbour - this is because there are always those ready to misread anything said about that relationship. I am quite prepared to discuss it in private with anyone who wishes, but I'm "not going there" in public.


----------



## hedonist

danielfranco said:
			
		

> Ah, Mexico... It stands as a solitary figure in the sense that it has never carried out a successful invasion
> (as far as I know, but how far is that, really? No one knows...)
> The one country I am sure that Mexico did try to invade was the erstwhile Republic of Texas. Then, enter Sam Huston. Remember the Alamo, and all that jazz...
> Back in its pre-Colombus history, the nations within what is now known as central Mexico would invade each other every other Tuesday, it seems, never holding the territories for long... Until the Aztecs (Mexicas) arrived in the scene and "smooshed" everyone else and imposed their order, there was no Mexico. The Aztecs invented Mexico. And then the Spanish came and "smooshed" them into oblivion....
> I think that, even now, the defeatist and despondent attitude prevalent in many areas of the Mexican culture (mainly the State) might be traced back to the very definite Spanish conquest and almost obliteration of the Mexicans over five hundred years ago.



 I highly recommend this book:

*Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest*

http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/LatinAmerican/?ci=0195160770&view=usa





> Matthew Restall
> 
> According to historical consensus, the Spanish conquest of the New World was a cataclysm in which superior European technology and organization overwhelmed Native American civilizations. In this daring revisionist critique, Penn State historian Restall describes a far more complex process in which Indians were central participants on both sides of the struggle. Far from regarding the Spaniards as gods, Restall argues, Indians offered a variety of shrewd, pragmatic responses to the invaders while advancing their own political agendas.






			
				danielfranco said:
			
		

> The Aztecs invented Mexico.


Just the name. The territory that the “Aztecs” ruled is only a small section of current day Mexico. The country that is now referred to as Mexico is a modern invention. 



			
				danielfranco said:
			
		

> And then the Spanish came and "smooshed" them into oblivion....
> I think that, even now, the defeatist and despondent attitude prevalent in many areas of the Mexican culture (mainly the State) might be traced back to the very definite Spanish conquest and almost obliteration of the Mexicans over five hundred years ago.


   This articles touches on that very point;

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1091714398



> *The idea that the Aztecs were deceived or betrayed, Restall implied, may gain them a kind of moral revenge in hindsight - but it also deprives them of a full-fledged role in their own history.  The powerlessness of defeat can become a paralyzing and angry burden if no alternatives are presented.
> 
> Scholars increasingly argue that tragic accounts of submission and conquest, beyond a certain point, deny people the conviction they are in control of their own lives. Much the same debate has occurred in recent decades about the history of slavery, so that the bulk of research today explores how Africans and their ancestors resisted and survived enslavement, not how they were crushed by it. *



   I’m in full agreement with the comments above.

I still don’t know why in this day and age a genocide (deliberate or not) or slaughter of millions of innocent human beings (not all Native Americans practiced human sacrifice and even that is disputed or at least the extent of it which is argued that the invading foreigners exaggerated to justify atrocities committed to “civilize” the savages) is lauded as a great achievement. As long as that type of selective recollection of historical events is touted as accurate and truthful it’s not surprising that the descendants of those “conquered” people continue to have the despondent and defeatists attitude that you’ve mentioned.


----------



## Aldin

My country never.But it was invaded in many occasions throught the history:
first the Romans,then Slavs,then Avars,then Bosnia was a kingdom and then it was conquered by Turks(1463),then Austrians and then Nazi and finally Bosnia was free in Yugoslavia.And then Serbs invaded Bosnia(1991/2) and finally Bosnia gets its independence in 1995.All those conquerers left something good in Bosnia,their trace(serbs only destruction and lot of pain)


----------



## Tensai

Tatzingo said:
			
		

> There is a claim that China annexed Hong Kong in 1997 and is seeking the same result with regards Taiwan.... (see edit)
> 
> If I remember my history, Hong Kong was Chinese territory annexed to the British at the end of the Opium wars, for a period close to 100 years. China didn't annex Hong Kong at all, rather, territory ceded/capitulated by them was restored to their government in 1997.
> 
> I don't want to launch accusations but this one article sounds more like propanganda to me....


 
hahahaha, i didn't know that my hometown Hong Kong was annexed by my home country China, this is news to me 
British RETURNED Hong Kong to China in 1997
if someone wants to spread propanganda, atleast get the facts right


----------



## emma42

One of the most shameful acts of that appalling woman, Margaret Thatcher, was to lead this country's military into war with Argentina over the Malvinas/Falklands.  The Government had taken practically no notice of the Malvinas for decades, and hardly any ordinary Briton had even heard of the islands.

But because Mrs Thatcher was determined to destroy the Trades Union Movement from before the onset of her premiership (plans had been hatched and deployed for years) and set in motion other destructive and anti-working class measures, she saw the "invasion" of the Malvinas by Argentina as a golden opportunity to deflect attention from what she was really about (as if she needed to - her stealth tactics and dirty tricks were second to none) and cynically sent troops to their deaths and to effect the deaths of Argentine troops.  She then lied about her reasons, including one particularly infamous lie about the sinking of the Argentine ship, The General Belgrano.  She insisted that this ship was in "British" waters and was therefore a legitimate target.  She was held to account over this lie by an ordinary voter in a TV phone- in, which was riveting to listen to.


----------



## CrazyIvan

> But I have to differ with you somewhere:The more I can talk to them, the more I think I can understand the way they act.
> True, but I can never understand the way they acted.


 
oh, coconutpalm. If you are familiar Chinese culture, we have a word say "鑑古知今"which means if you understand well about the history in the past, you have no problem to figure the things at present.

I believe vice versa can work as well. 

Let me explain Japanese a little bit according to my understanding.(since I am not born Japanese so what I say may be wrong, please correct me if someone understand it in another way.)

They will consider things prudentially before execution, however, if they decide to put things into practice, they would do whatever it cost to win it.

That explained the WWII quite much. 

If you read through my article clearly, I have explained you that there were internal arguments/conflicts over the policy or invasion in Japan right before they decided to start the full-scale of Pacific War. That "peace-progressor" failed to win support and the Army decide to go forward to the war. So, that is how it all begun.

And coming back to my understanding, if they want to do it, they do whatever it cost to make it done.

That is how those terrible things happened.

So, please. Do not let your/your folks' feeling block your efforts to understand Japanese people.

I am not telling that they are right. But just let you know that, if you understand them well, that is not difficult to find out why they acted like that.


----------



## emma42

Thank you, crazy Ivan.  I am very much trying to understand and I do believe that coconutpalm is as well.  It is very difficult to understand, however, when  (as I believe) Japanese culture says that one should be circumspect, reticent.  I believe that the Japanese would think it very rude or even taboo to talk about things like this.  I hope my understanding is correct.  

It is very very difficult for someone from my culture to understand such a different culture, but I am trying.


----------



## CrazyIvan

Please do not feel offended coconutpalm and other Chinese folks. I am about to present some uneasy facts

Since we talk about invasion. I would like to point out that China has constantly build up their military capacity without clear international monitoring.

We(Taiwanese) especially feel this heat, while the PLA deployed some 400+ missiles and aim at our heads.

If we all agree that invasion causes tragedies, then that is our responsibility( or responsibility of our generation) to stop this from happening.


----------



## CrazyIvan

emma42 said:
			
		

> Thank you, crazy Ivan. I am very much trying to understand and I do believe that coconutpalm is as well.


 
I really have to appreciate your efforts to understand Asian culture, and the difference,and further, the conflicts in between these culture.

As an Asian, I sometimes cannot fully understand my region as well. We are simliar in great extent but differences in small details, which really make each of us distinct/unique.



			
				emma42 said:
			
		

> I believe that the Japanese would think it very rude or even taboo to talk about things like this. I hope my understanding is correct.


 
To some extent, yes, it is difficult to start this converstaion with Japanese.But, once you are friend with them, it is not hard to discuss this. Lots of young generation are angery at the way their government dealing with this thing as I know. 

However, every political issues is kind of taboo while you firstly met someone, right?


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:
			
		

> The U.S.
> 
> Been invaded?  I suppose you could call the War of 1812 an "invasion", maybe 9/11, but I think both would be a bit of a stretch.  Otherwise, no.
> 
> Invaded others?  Yup, Iraq most recently of course


You are the second person from the US to make light of the invasion of the War of 1812.  The first had his facts badly wrong.

What do you choose to call it when a foreign country sends troops, they land on your territory, and burn your capital city to the ground?  A friendly social outing?   Come on. Read a little, just a very little history.  The US was invaded, not visited, by  British military forces.  They torched Washington DC. They fired cannons and bullets. They blockaded ports.

But then, those are just facts, and some folks prefer to argue myths.

Why grudgingly just "suppose" you could call it an invasion. It was an invasion. Period.


----------



## cuchuflete

emma42 said:
			
		

> One of the most shameful acts of that appalling woman, Margaret Thatcher, was to lead this country's military into war with Argentina over the Malvinas/Falklands.  The Government had taken practically no notice of the Malvinas for decades, and hardly any ordinary Briton had even heard of the islands.
> 
> But because Mrs Thatcher was determined to destroy the Trades Union Movement from before the onset of her premiership (plans had been hatched and deployed for years) and set in motion other destructive and anti-working class measures, she saw the "invasion" of the Malvinas by Argentina as a golden opportunity to deflect attention from what she was really about (as if she needed to - her stealth tactics and dirty tricks were second to none) and cynically sent troops to their deaths and to effect the deaths of Argentine troops.  She then lied about her reasons, including one particularly infamous lie about the sinking of the Argentine ship, The General Belgrano.  She insisted that this ship was in "British" waters and was therefore a legitimate target.  She was held to account over this lie by an ordinary voter in a TV phone- in, which was riveting to listen to.



You probably have your facts about Thatcher right, but you've left out the other two thirds of the story...the Argentine side, which was painfully similar to the Thatcherite acts of brutal cynicism, and that of the islanders themselves.  About a year ago we had a very long and informative thread on the topic.  You might wish to have a look.   

I'm no friend of revisionist history that uses an event to make a point, even stating things that are correct on the surface, without full context.  The UK did not invade the Falklands or Malvinas.  Jorge Vidella and company did.  Lots of UK citizens and Argentine citizens died.  It was tragic and needless.  Both sides found the war a useful diversion from their abject failures at home.  And young cannon fodder paid the price in blood.


----------



## coconutpalm

No offended indeed, Ivan. Although I myself (and most people around me as well) firmly believe that we should  reunite, I keep wondering how Taiwanese would feel when being aimed at with missiles by fellow citizens. The cost would be too high once war broke out, and the fact that we are both the descendants of Great Dragon added the weight and made me even sadder.

Almostfreebird, my "big grin" icon meant nothing but that I really feel that is really a hard question to answer, especially as an outsider. If you feel offended, I apologize. I wanted to send you a PM but later I think it would better for me to say this in public. 

Last night when I was lying in my bed, I thought about the question of "nationalism" and "patriotism"---two sides of one coin.
 In the past, whoever rules that can make the people invaded live a happy life is good rulers and can be eventually accepted by the people, as often happened in China's history. However, since we invented these two words, things have become very very complicated: the invadors have no intention to have the people invaded live a happy life, and the invaded hate the invadors more because they think they are hating on behalf of their country as well.
The key word may be "otherness". 
The fact that we are here talking/arguing about invading and being invaded maybe because, deep in heart, we still think the people from another country are other people.

Can we return to our primtive selves withou these religious, political, and national issues/conflicts? I don't think so. Desperate.
Solutions must exist. We don't know what they are, but at least we can take a step towards it, and I think to put everything on table maybe helpful.


----------



## Honour

Sorry, i could only write a short answer
After establishment of Turkey,we had only a single operation to cyprus but it cannot be counted for invasion because that is not the reason. 
Before Turkey, it was Ottoman empire time and we had first invaded many countries and then invaded ( some of them they regained their independence) by them later. it is a six century's history and numerous countries involved from middle east to north africa and east europe.
Arabs, persians, greeks, egpyptians, russians, bulgarians, macedonians, hungarians, italians, britons and frenchs are the nations we had had an affair in terms of invasion.


----------



## emma42

Well, Cuchuflete, I am sorry you think that I was being "revisionist" and that I had left out two-thirds of the story.  To be revisionist was not my intention and I rather resent the implication, although I can understand why you would say that.  Oh, and I did not say that the UK had invaded the Malvinas.

I was merely trying to describe a shameful event in Britain's recent history to illustrate the cynicism of some politicians - actually going to war just to score political points at home.  My aim was not to give a complete overview of the conflict, but I agree with what you say in your last two sentences.  Just because not every single aspect and viewpoint is described, does not mean that the writer is being deliberately dishonest.l


----------



## cuchuflete

emma42 said:
			
		

> I was merely trying to describe a shameful event in Britain's recent history to illustrate the cynicism of some politicians - actually going to war just to score political points at home.  My aim was not to give a complete overview of the conflict, but I agree with what you say in your last two sentences.  Just because not every single aspect and viewpoint is described, does not mean that the writer is being deliberately dishonest.l


Your honesty was not and is not in question. There was an invasion. It was undertaken for disgustingly cynical, diversionary motives.  It was done by Argentine military forces, who were sacrificed in a botched attempt to cover up the failed economy that a vile dictatorship had added to its crimes of torture and murder of citizens.  Compared with Videla and friends, the
scum who took babies of their torture victims and gave them to political cronies, your Mrs Thatcher was a pinko.

If one pretends to believe in self-determination, the residents of the Malvinas/Falkands were extraordinarily close to unanimous in wanting nothing to do with Argentina, while enjoying an affiliation with Britain, which was mostly out-of-sight and out-of-mind.

The only 'winner' in that conflict was the French armaments industry, which enjoyed additional sales of Exocet missiles, which were used to kill quite a lot of British sailors.

To the thread topic: Britain was not invaded, nor was Argentina.  The islands were invaded. The Argentines, who had long enjoyed close cultural ties with the British, changed the name of the Torre Británico in downtown Buenos Aires.
It had long been a symbol of genuine friendship between two nations.

Anglo-Argentines stopped speaking English in public. Bi-lingual signs were removed from businesses.   It would be really interesting to hear from some Argentine foreros as to how much, if any, bad feeling persists, or if the issue has faded into the annals of the horrors of the military dictatorship that
ravaged that fine country.


----------



## emma42

I have no argument with this.  I will ensure, next time, that I include a full world history in every post.


----------



## ireney

Turk said:
			
		

> After establishment of Turkey,we had only a single operation to cyprus but it cannot be counted for invasion because that is not the reason.
> .


 
Errr, I don't want us to start bickering about Cyprus in this thread (there are other bickerings, we don't need to add ours eh?  ) but, no matter what the reasons, it WAS an invasion.

(For those of you not well versed in the history of Cyprus, both Greece and Turkey, as 'mother-nations' of the Greek-Cypriots and the Turk-Cypriots respectively, had the right, in case 'their' population was persecuted from the 'others', to go in Cyprus and protect them. I won't go into what happened. All I will say (and that only to prevent Turk or anyone else of my neighbours frequenting this site from thinking I try not to be partial) is that, because of acts by the Greek side, the Turks decided to take action.)

The reason I call it an invasion is that you are still there and you occupy territory belonging to the State of Cyprus (as stated in the same agreement you use as an excuse for sending your troops). 

We can of course debate (endlessly) about Cyprus in another thread if you wish although I rather we didn't


----------



## Honour

ireney said:
			
		

> Errr, I don't want us to start bickering about Cyprus in this thread (there are other bickerings, we don't need to add ours eh?  ) but, no matter what the reasons, it WAS an invasion.
> 
> (For those of you not well versed in the history of Cyprus, both Greece and Turkey, as 'mother-nations' of the Greek-Cypriots and the Turk-Cypriots respectively, had the right, in case 'their' population was persecuted from the 'others', to go in Cyprus and protect them. I won't go into what happened. All I will say (and that only to prevent Turk or anyone else of my neighbours frequenting this site from thinking I try not to be partial) is that, because of acts by the Greek side, the Turks decided to take action.)
> 
> The reason I call it an invasion is that you are still there and you occupy territory belonging to the State of Cyprus (as stated in the same agreement you use as an excuse for sending your troops).
> 
> We can of course debate (endlessly) about Cyprus in another thread if you wish although I rather we didn't


 
Off course it was an invasion, i couldn't express myself correctly i think. The purpose of the operation was not to capture the whole land,in this respect it is not an invasion.When i said invasion it means capturing a country with totally hostile intentions. You know, if it was the intention of the operation then there was no barriers to stop the army. Invasion of greece by ottomans or invasion of anatolia by greeks, like that. Nonetheless, you are exactly right about two things from my point of view. First it is not our subject here and i have forgotten to mention it, they are the politicians who don't want to solve issues between us. I sometimes think there are some underground beneficial points for them. If i don't count crazy nationalist (the ones nearly at a degree of racists) i have seen nobody hostile to greece or greeks. However when i watch news in the evening an if there is a news about greece then politicians are exactly barking each other. I know some history and that is the history;why would i be hostile to men living there? Senseless.


----------



## Tatzingo

Fernando said:
			
		

> You are right. Anyway, Outsider use to be well informed. POssibly he has more data than me.
> 
> Well, obviously "peaceful" is difficult to know when talking about those old days. Possibly most of what we called "invasions" (as an example, Celtics moving to Iberian Peninsula) was mostly peaceful, while many migrations were performed with the weapons at hand.



Outsider, Fernando,

Sorry, I think the structure of my question was misleading. I wasn't trying to claim that the migration was definitely peaceful, i was trying to ASCERTAIN from someone else whether it was indeed peaceful or violent...

Tatz.

Outsider: Any good links for this "theory"?


----------



## Tatzingo

> Originally Posted by *Tatzingo*
> _
> There is a claim that China annexed Hong Kong in 1997 and is seeking the same result with regards Taiwan.... (see edit)
> 
> If I remember my history, Hong Kong was Chinese territory annexed to the British at the end of the Opium wars, for a period close to 100 years. China didn't annex Hong Kong at all, rather, territory ceded/capitulated by them was restored to their government in 1997.
> 
> I don't want to launch accusations but this one article sounds more like propanganda to me...._





			
				Tensai said:
			
		

> hahahaha, i didn't know that my hometown Hong Kong was annexed by my home country China, this is news to me
> British RETURNED Hong Kong to China in 1997
> if someone wants to spread propanganda, atleast get the facts right


Tensai,

That wasn't MY claim...

I agree with what you are saying, the WEBSITE ought to check its facts. 
However, please re-read my post with a little care. The statement in green was paraphrasis of content from a website that another forero had posted a link to. The statement in orange is the truth and also what i was trying to get across.... it is exactly what you are saying. 

And yes, I also agree that such claims are blatant propaganda.

Tatz.

Ps. And don't worry - no offence taken.


----------



## Becker

panjabigator said:
			
		

> India, to my knowledge has never invaded anyone. But, they have been invaded by pretty much everything. Many people still hold a grudge.
> 
> I for one am annoyed whenever I discuss it, but I suck it up and get over it quickly. Nothing can be done about it now...just hope for progress!


 
Before the arrival of the British was there single entity called "India"?


----------



## emma42

I hope this isn't going off-topic, but can forer@s think of anyone else a bit like Gandhi in terms of reaction to and dealing with invasion/occupation?  Just typing his name makes me feel a bit funny - he was extraordinary.


----------



## coconutpalm

I don't think it's off-topic. quote: "What actions are necessary, on a national and individual basis, for countries to put their past behind them and form a strong bond with each other?What are examples of countries which have done this successfully?"Gandhi was extraodinary. Peaceful movement against repression/invasion.It was completely different in the progress of China's fight against the invasion. We believed in "violence against violence". We succeeded in building a new country as well, yet there are Taiwan (someone might add Tibet and Xinjiang).No one knows whether we did the right thing. It seems that we were left with only one choice.


----------



## Outsider

Tatzingo said:
			
		

> Outsider: Any good links for this "theory"?


Well, I know that Wikipedia isn't the most reliable of sources around, but they do have lots of references at the bottom of the page. Why not check a few of them?


----------



## karuna

I think that it takes something more than invasion to spoil the relationships perpetually. Sour relationships between Latvia and Russian, for example, is not simply the result of previous Soviet occupation. There are complex socio-economic reasons. 

1) The occupation resulted in economic crash and the resentment naturally is directed to Russians. 

2) There was unnaturally large influx of Russian immigrants who did not learn Latvian or local culture but forced Latvians to learn Russian instead. Latvia was changed into a bilingual country but with unequal proportions: Latvians spoke Latvian and Russian, but Russians spoke only Russian. It is resented by current Latvian youth because they no longer can speak Russian but it seriously limits their job prospects in their native country.  (Like Americans who cannot get job as nurses because they don't speak Spanish, I have heard about such cases.)

3) Cultural differences. Russians are very open and hospitable persons. On the other hand Latvians are rather prudent and takes long time to accept others as friends. And from their point of view Russians are intrusive and aggressive. 

Nevertheless, all political disagreements aside, the economic connections are thriving between Russia and Latvia. And if a foreigner tries to speak Latvian in Latvia it will be accepted as the highest form of respect.


----------



## panjabigator

Becker said:
			
		

> Before the arrival of the British was there single entity called "India"?


 No.  So India has not invaded anyone, however there were invasions and battles between the princely states.


----------



## Becker

So when you say "India, to my knowledge has never invaded anyone."... you mean modern India right?


----------



## panjabigator

Yes.  I dont think Modern India has invaded anyone.


----------



## toscairn

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Your honesty was not and is not in question. There was an invasion. It was undertaken for disgustingly cynical, *diversionary motives*.  It was done by Argentine military forces, who were sacrificed in a botched attempt *to cover up the failed economy that a vile dictatorship had added to its crimes of torture and murder of citizens.*  Compared with Videla and friends, the
> scum who took babies of their torture victims and gave them to political cronies, your Mrs Thatcher was a pinko.
> 
> If one pretends to believe in self-determination, the residents of the Malvinas/Falkands were extraordinarily close to unanimous in wanting nothing to do with Argentina, while enjoying an affiliation with Britain, which was mostly out-of-sight and out-of-mind.
> 
> *The only 'winner' in that conflict was the French armaments industry*, which enjoyed additional sales of Exocet missiles, which were used to kill quite a lot of British sailors.
> 
> To the thread topic: Britain was not invaded, nor was Argentina.  The islands were invaded. The Argentines, who had long enjoyed close cultural ties with the British, changed the name of the Torre Británico in downtown Buenos Aires.
> It had long been a symbol of genuine friendship between two nations.
> 
> Anglo-Argentines stopped speaking English in public. Bi-lingual signs were removed from businesses.   It would be really interesting to hear from some Argentine foreros as to how much, if any, bad feeling persists, or if the issue has faded into the annals of the horrors of the military dictatorship that
> ravaged that fine country.



Interesting, cuchuflete. The same political force that you've shown in describing the Folk Islands War is playing a part in what is seen as a sudden surge in the number and size of protests in China against Japanese wartime aggression. As BBC and other western newsmedia have reported, there had scaresly been protests against Japan and Japanese people enough to occupy top stories prior to the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe (around 1989). China experienced two Tiananmen Square Massacres (1976 and 1989). CCP (China Communist Party) took those incidents seriously and were afraid if they took no measures, their regime might soon be overthrown. So what they launched was a series of programs that would boost people's nationalism, their love of CCP, and allowing capitalistic economic systems to enter into Chinese economy, slowly, so as not to make people known that communisum was a bad choice and the very source of people's misery. At the same time they needed a scape goat, or a rival country, which was marked by CCP's *diversionary motives*:to turn people's eye from the economic division between the rich and poor, between the rich coastal area and the poor inland China; to divert people's blame for failing communist economy away from CCP. They were desperate for a scapegoat. That's the prime reason why Japan was targeted as their archrival and scapegoat. They totally rewritten their textbooks and exaggerated the size and number of casualties in the war. Nanjing Massacre's death toll that China claims was unsubstantiated, exaggerated, inflated number that is ten times larger that western scholars reported. Even though we Japanese feel guilty of such brutality having took place, but we cannot help sensing China's ulterior motives behind the number reported.

China's patriotic education, even jingoistic education, is characterized by "hate Japan, hate Japan," which is a stark contrast to Japan's "live peacefully with other nations, hand in hand; together we will prosper." China teaches hate, but Japan teaches love. 

Coconutpalm has said that Japan's history textbooks are "glorifying" Japan army's wartime aggresion, but in fact not. Japan is a free, democratic society, and each school has a right to choose its textbooks. In Tokyo Prefecture alone, the problematic textbook that is said to be "glorifying" the past act of Japan is adopted by less than 0.5% of the population.  Japan is a country where freedom of expression is cherished.


----------



## cuchuflete

I have to apologize for my ignorance of both Japanese and Chinese languages.  That weakness prevents me from reading the textbooks published in either country.  I would not be surprised to find that many such texts, as those in my own country and in other countries, 'slant' the facts as much by omission as by what they do say.

I would welcome a brief citation from a common or popular Japanese textbook regarding the  Nanjing Massacre, and would like to compare it to what an equivalent Chinese text has to say about events in Tibet.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if different countries present the same historical happenings in very different ways.  For example, I would expect vastly different "factual" views of the continued Russian occupation of Japanese territory invaded towards the end of WW II.


----------



## toscairn

> _Originally Posted by coconutpalm_
> Nowadays, the political relationship between China and Japan is extremely bad. What is worse, *the peoples in both countries HATE each other, or at least, loathe each other.*



The number of Japanese who HATE Chinese is quite small, much smaller, in fact, compared with Chinese opinion polls. We are taught in school to respect other peoples, regardless of nations. 

The underlined part, is that what 新華社通信(Xinhua News Agency) is making you believe? As Wikipedia put it, _"It is one of the two news agencies in the PRC, the other being the China News Service, and is among the premier world news agencies." _It is regrettable that in China, where there's no freedom of speech allowed, there are only two newsagencies. It's beyond imagination for us people of free and democratic nations, but it might be quite natural for a country which saw no democratic regime all throughout its long history. To quote Wikipedia further: _Some critics of Xinhua therefore consider it to be an instrument of state-sponsored propaganda. Reporters Without Borders has called it "the world's biggest propaganda agency" _ That means, if I understand the Wikipedia article correctly, that every news you learn is controlled by the state-owned firm. Besides, the famous Google filter which hampers all the search results dealing with topics unfavorable to CCP. All websites which declare politically motivated statements have to get permissions from the authority. All those conditions combined will inevitably even out people's opinions, wipe out diversities, and eventually dictate what people should think and how to act. No wonder that every time Chinese people claim something, they sound quite the same whatever people whatever occasion. Their opinions are doomed to converge themselves into a particular fixed idea. Social conditions, political conditions made them so.


----------



## hedonist

castellano said:
			
		

> Taking the topic name as a reference and perhaps not following the discussion itself, I would like to point out something many of the foreros don't know about the conquest of America.
> 
> America was discovered on 12 October 1492 by Columbus, but he was not a Spaniard nor worked for Spain.
> At that time, Spain as a political entity did NOT exist as such. The flags pending in the three ships was the Castilian flag.
> The state-nation that discovered the American continent officially was CASTILE.
> 
> I just want to point this out, as it seems that Castile is *deliberately* forgotten historically both (and specially) _in Spain _and abroad.
> 
> [Could you talk about Great Britain and its deeds through History but forgetting England???]
> 
> Best regards.


I wonder...if Castellano and his people can be immensely proud of their so-called achievements (read: atrocities) why can't the Japanese be proud of their accomplishments in mainland China? Food for thought.


----------



## toscairn

emma42 said:
			
		

> Given the reparations made by, for example, Germany, it would seem that the rest of the world (certainly anywhere I can think of immediately) simply cannot understand the attitude of the Japanese government.  The link mentions that a large majority of respondents to a survey in Japan want more dialogue about the matter in apparent contrast to its government.  This begs the question of whether the government's reluctance is really a matter of culture, as many think.   Does the government adhere to/practise/live in a different culture from its people?


The fact is, Japan did offer reparations for the damage caused to China. Japan has paid a substantial amount of money as reparations to Dutch, Indonesia, Korea and etc. Chairman Mao Zedong declined Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka's offer for reparations. It is believed that there had been an agreement among the few superpowers not to ask for reparations from the former Axis, in view of the cause of Nazi gaining power, which was an astronomical amount of reparations imposed by France. Besides, China around 1972 was struggling to "save face" by getting admitted as international superpower. The relation between China and the Soviet Union was tense, so that China started trying to improve its relation with US and Japan. Then came the normilization of diplomatic ties between the two countries (1972).

Also this is important to note that, Japan gave an enormous amount of money to China as ODA. More than 3 trillion yen are given to China, which is the fact almost no Chinese people somehow don't know. That is because the Chinese Press are government controlled, and they don't want its people to know that Japan have been showing remorse, and offering a helping hand for compensation. That is to use it as a political leverage, to be exercised in case of political or economic tension between the two countries.


----------



## Carita

This is a very timely post, and I take great interest in it. But I guess my opinion is quite far from being objective, although I try to be, since I am Japanese.

I think in both Japan and China, (and in Korea, to expand the topic a bit), people who have settled their minds over the issue of previous coloniazation, mass murders, massacres, vicious exploitation in our past ARE already over it. The relationship amongst these three countries, or to be more precise, China x Japan or Korea x Japan, have improved quitea bit over the years. The contstant flow of Japanese tourists to China is an asset to a Chinese municipality and the country's prosperity, and vice versa. We also send out and welcome in innumerable exchange students per year between the countries.

However, when things get a little political, the fact that Japan once dominated East Asia is a too-yummy-to-ignore candy for China. The ongoing battle between the PMs regarding the Yasukuni Shrine has brought another cunning political stragety of China to surface. In my opinion, China is overreacting. Japan and Koizumi have admitted to the war crimes we committed in the past and given official and public apologies. The whole country is aware why China detests our PM's custom of visiting the shrine at issue, and have considered and discussed removing the top-calss war criminals from the shrine, to appease the tension between China and Japan. However, according to the Shintoistic teachings and custom, this is not feasible. Yet China remains deeply upset and demands our PM quit his annual visit to the shrine.

Since we have tried to mend the situation yet were notified of the difficulty (impossiblity, rather) due to religious reasons, I deem China's demand to the Japanese PM unreasonable. 

Don't get me wrong, though Coconut, because I'm not a big fan of Japanese Politics (although, I am a supporter of Koizumi and his solid intention to keep up his ritual). No pun intended, but Japan seems to be taken advantage of by China at times, but I think for the most part, it is Japan who's been letting that happen repeatedly without changing its wishy-washy, passive attitude towards foreign relations.

Sorry I made an unreasobly long post.


----------



## toscairn

coconutpalm said:
			
		

> The Japanese government *deliberately hides the facts *from its people, but I believe they pay attention to it. As you know, the relationship between Korea and Japan is also bad due to the fact that Japan denies that it was playing invader. Rather, it emphasizes that it was also victim.
> 
> I think that's off-topic, so I will stop here. And I'd like to hear the opinions of our Japanese friends on this forum.



 As for "Japanese government deliberately hides the facts," I feel a strong obligation, as a freedom loving individual, to contradict the statement. Japan is a free, democratic nation in which the press, broadcasting stations, news agencies, publishing houses or any form of media are free to voice any opinion, whether it be in an anti-governmental tone or not. Whereas in China, all those institutions are under strict control of CCP, and anyone voicing any hint of unfavorable opinions to CCP is put into jail, I hear. 

 Take textbooks, for example. Each school in Japan is free to choose its textbooks. In China, only one version of history book which is imposed by CCP. Is that not right? Tell me if I'm wrong on this.

 People in China, as I understand it, are yoked citizens, in terms of freedom of speech. And their opinions are shaped within the design of the government, allowing a fluctuation which won't inhibit China's interests. This is realized through such national media as Xinhua News Agency. And once their opinions are formed, they are maintained--through the constant screening and monitoring by the Google filter. Through this process--narrowing down people's opinions, tailoring them to government's taste, and strengthening them to be taken advantage of in case of diplomatic tensions with other nations.

Don't take my account personally, I only intented as a response to your misguiding message which apparently containd untruth.


----------



## maxiogee

toscairn said:
			
		

> Take textbooks, for example. Each school in Japan is free to choose its textbooks. In China, only one version of history book which is imposed by CCP. Is that not right? Tell me if I'm wrong on this.



I don't see a problem with this.
In Ireland the curriculum, and the course material, is set by the state.

Irish History was a fraught subject when I was in school.
We were not long an independent country and had a 'tense' attitude towards England. We had also had a bitter Civil War.
So, without knowing what is in either Japanese or Chinese textbooks I feel confident to speak on the issue.
Nothing which could have been in our schoolbooks could have pleased everyone. There would always be those who would have said that they books were either minimising the events, or were exaggerating them. For this reason the study of Irish History, while I was in school, stopped at the Easter Rising of 1916 — the last great failed rebellion against the British.
This was probably not an ideal answer to the probelm, but it avoided a host of problems. Ireland in the 1950s and '60s had one of the highest per-capita consumption of newspapers in Europe, and it was felt that the lack of study of the recent past was not causing an overwhelming lack of awareness of the period.


----------



## coconutpalm

http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/nanking_massacre.htmhttp://www.answers.com/topic/nanking-massacreIn In both links, our &quot;foreign friends&quot; list the casulalty figure as 300,000.I truly think we are getting far far off-topic and as I am the starter, I am mainly responsible for it. I will consult a Mod, and if we are really getting off-topic, I will send some PMs to several of you.


----------



## almostfreebird

coconutpalm said:
			
		

> http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/nanking_massacre.htmhttp://www.answers.com/topic/nanking-massacreIn In both links, our &quot;foreign friends&quot; list the casulalty figure as 300,000.I truly think we are getting far far off-topic and as I am the starter, I am mainly responsible for it. I will consult a Mod, and if we are really getting off-topic, I will send some PMs to several of you.


 
Here is a complete list of National Death Tolls for the world war if you like.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Blame


----------



## maxiogee

almostfreebird said:
			
		

> Here is *an in*complete list of National Death Tolls for the world war if you like.
> http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm[/COLOR]



That site makes no mention of the Irish who died in the allied forces!
I quote from a the first site I found on a search for "Irish dead" +"second word war".

"The Great War has received much of the attention, but the Irish dead of the Second World War were many too. At last year's Remebrance Day service in Dublin we were reminded that 70,000 Irishmen volunteered to fight in the British armed forces and 12,000 were killed. (Additionally, and less often noted, 200,000 migrated to work in Britain's war economy.) None were forced to fight by conscription; each could have chosen to stay put, comparatively safe in neutral Ireland."

That we were a neutral country in the Second World War was because of a certain historical viewpoint adopted by our leaders at the time. This did not stop our citizens becoming involved. They served not only in the British forces, but with American and Canadians too.


----------



## ireney

The way things are going, I think I should PM "Turk" or any other Turkish member around here, PM some of the Greeks that frequent the site too, and _then_ you'll see what disagreeing about past conflicts means! We've got loads of them you see, and some of the issues are still unresolved! We can flood this thread and any other thread really.

Then I can PM any Bulgarian who hangs around these forums and I can start arguing with him/her too. It will be even better if any Turkish member takes part in the discussion too so that we can start an even bigger brouhaha.


----------



## coconutpalm

You're right, Ireney. I wrote those last words in a state that I nearly thought I was going to die---I never thought my heart would beat that vehement way!Stop here, foreroes. Please.Although I rarely regret what I choose to do, I am regretting for starting this thread.In my personal life, as I claimed before, I try my best to be neutral and critic when posting on the local forums where most of my fellow citizens are REALLY furious at Japan that they dont' want to analyze the facts. Surely I have no intention to bring up a quarrel here. I was just being curious, and the example of China-Japan relationship was presented becuase I am most familiar with OUR history.
BTW, the mod's reply hasn't yet arrived.


----------



## cuchuflete

Writing as a forero, and not as a moderator, I ask that we try to move away from specific personal or national understandings of "the facts of history", and try to focus a little more on the phenomenon of how people respond to their own understanding.


If I were Japanese or Chinese or a Turkish or Greek Cypriot or any of the other hundreds of groups that included both the invaders and the invaded, I imagine I would have some very mixed feelings about the entire topic.  I grew up with a very different kind of culture, that lets the past go after a while, other than as a teacher of what to do and not do in the present.

Let me tell a little story to illustrate what I mean.  Decades ago, when I was a boy, my family joined a group called--I think this was the name...it was very long ago and I may have it wrong--International Childrens' Summer Village.   That organization was dedicated, I suppose, to international understanding through face-to-face contacts among children from different countries.

My family hosted two boys of my age, one from Norway, and one from Japan.  The three of us played together, despite language problems, and became friends.  This was less than two decades after the end of the Second World War, in which all of our nations had fought.  None of the three of us had been told that any child born after that war was a demon, or was to be held accountable for things, including horrors, that took place before the child existed.

When it was my birthday, the Japanese boy had become quite sick with a summer cold, and had a fever.  My mother was caring for him as if he were her own child.  I told my mother I wanted to cancel my birthday party, as the noise might interrupt his rest.  She agreed that it was the right thing to do.  There was no geopolitics or national pride in any of this; just ordinary people.

My aunt called, was told the party was cancelled, and got quite enraged at me.  She said it was ridiculous to cancel the celebration "because of that Jap!".  I was confused, hurt, ashamed, and I cried.
She and I didn't speak for some years after that. 

Years later, I reflected back on the events of that day, and tried to understand what had happened and why.  I determined that my aunt was still full of grief and anger about the death of her little brother, who served in the war.  She was unable to let go of her feelings about the war, and turned them to a little boy from Japan who wasn't on this earth when the war took place.  She and I had been very close until that day.  Our loving family relationship never fully recovered from her display of anger and hatred, which frightened me, and put me in a position of having to choose between the needs and desires of family and friends.  I was unable to do that, and was tormented.

I am grateful to my parents, who accepted that the war was over, had lessons to teach, but should not poison our ability to know and care for other people in the present and future.  Had they, like my aunt, continued to hold and nurture bitterness, or to seek vengeance, I would have been denied a friendship with another child, and in all likelihood would have imparted ongoing hatred to my own chidren.

Most of us live in countries that have both suffered and imparted abuse to the peoples of other countries, or have had civil wars in which our own peoples have brutalized one another, taking lives as well as land.  Our choice today is what to do with our own knowledge and feelings.  We cannot control what past opponents will do--most of them are dead.
We cannot control what the children and grandchildren of those enemies of our parents and grandparents will feel.  
We can learn that hatred, carried from one generation to another, will do no good to ourselves or anyone else, and will only beget further hatred.  That is our choice to make.


----------



## 3.1416

Please, Do not read me if you are not willing to have an open mind, OK?!
I am writing this for the sake of free expression.
I am a human and i love every human being.
And this is honouring a Very Brave Girl
And please remember.
*"Aquel que no conoce su historia esta condenado a repetirla"*
Hi, 
I just want you to know that i think you're a brave girl.
I also live in a country that hides a lot of crap to people.
My country has been invaded several times due to the natural richness.
Due to the human nature of opression.
This same natural instinct made my ancestors a warrior civilization.
But they were not as cruel as the spaniards were with them.
My ancestors did not torture their enemies.
the POWs were tied on one foot and given a club and a shield, then they battle up to 7 warriors (not at the same time).
If they survived, they proved their courage and they were released and when back at home, they were treated as heroes.
My ancestors were scientists like yours (you have a Huuuuuuuuge wall and i have piramids).
After being invaded by (pretty much)everyone, my people has lost the courage and we live now under the shade of the US.
Thanks to our bootlicker politicians.
Thanks to the fear that has been implanted on us.
Our students were killed too and no one said a thing, thanks to foreign interests and investments (the olimpic games were coming a few days after the killing).

That was a very 'intense' thread.
I got angry at the europeans indifference, that's why i didn't participate there.



This part of a e-mail i edited in order to be understood.
Please, uncover your eyes


----------



## maxiogee

3.1416 said:
			
		

> *"Aquel que no conoce su historia esta condenado a repetirla"*



But there is a difference between knowing one's history, and learning from it, understanding it correctly, and not passing on the bitternesses caused by it.

Cuchuflete's post rings many bells with me. My mother was one of a large family from Omagh in Northern Ireland. One of her sisters married a man whose family had to leave Belfast at a time of great unrest between the two main religious factions there.
He passed on a great bitterness to his children regarding his native city and its inhabitants. His wife's very different background did not weigh for much in trying to counter his attitude.

The island of Ireland is cursed by having many people with long hindsight and short foresight!


----------



## GenJen54

*Please be patient* with moderator intervention and keep in mind the different time zones where the mods are located. We are not always able to get to things immediately.  If there is an emergency, you are always welcome to use the "Report-A-Post" feature. You are also welcome to contact a Moderator via Private Message with any specific concerns.

 Forer@s are welcome to keep to the primary topic of this thread:
_*Has Your Country Ever Invaded Another, or Has Your Country Ever Been Invaded...and see Coconut Palm's first post for further direction.*_

While the posts regarding information provided by textbooks and national media were a necessary diversion, they are wholly off-topic, and would make for a nice thread topic on their own.


----------



## ireney

First of all (keeping in mind cuchuflete's latest post) I am not a Greek-Cypriot. I am a Greek from Greece. I don't know how I would feel if I was from Cyprus. I do know that there are quite a few hotheads down there too and I also know though that quite a few have even created organisations that help Cypriots from both 'sides' to come closer together again.

However Cyprus is quite a different issue from even the China-Japan issue. The BIG -to my mind- difference is that not only it is a much more recent story, it is still unresolved.

I have friends from both Turkey and Bulgaria. With my Turkish friends we tend to stay clear of the Cyprus issue since we had nice, huge disagreements that ended up nowhere. 
The same can be said about the rest of our historical conflicts with both Turkey (and its predecessor the Ottoman Empire) and Bulgaria. No conclusion. That does not keep us from enless arguing. (though we tend to draw the line around the Middle-Ages; Apologising to a friend for what a Byzantine Emperor did to the Bulgarian troops got me a very surprising answer.

Now why am I saying all this? Well, I don't think it is _wrong_ to argue about history. I don't think it is wrong being passionate about it either. 
What I really think is wrong is the feeling I get from some posts of 'attacking' the other side.

And to keep this post on-topic: Some things hurt even today. Some things make me ashamed even today. They do not generate bitterness though. The past is the past.


----------



## tigretoro

emma42 said:
			
		

> I was about to type that I feel no guilt about the British Empire, just disgust. But the fact is, my life is comfortable and materially rich, despite living on a low income, due to the fact that my ancestors (or, more likely, their bosses) stole the countries and bodies of others. I don't feel guilt exactly, but I cannot deny that I feel something approaching embarrassment.


 
very honest emma,you touch the base of truth with your statement in todays world ,and the karma reverse is happening too,that is legal and illigal immigrants sending their salaries to their homelands,england ,spain ,france,europe etc---mostly labour class economic warriors,then thecheap labour costs of production in asia ,like china ,india etc the balance of nature will take its course finallly ,one should not feel approaching embarassment,it is not your fault ,the humans were very raw at that time, (which still the americans follow today with diffrent tools ofcourse)before it were guns against bow and arrow,but countries like yours and mine have learnt and respect the natures ways to  equibilirium,america is on adiffrent wave,they make war in iraq vietnaam and many more places,but they let tibet vanish without even  holding a  breath,as they cant f with china for many reasons,india gave shelter to the population of tibet and had towns allocated for them,when india parted with ,and gave away one huge part of the country to form todays  pakistan,on the basis of riligious divide,also announced that all muslims who want to stay back are welcome,today ther are 1000000 bangladeshis living in india,gandhi ji made the british go ,without a fight ,the biggest non violent war in the world,a diffrent dimension alltogether ,and so our ancestors and their bosses did what they did,we didnt do nothing ,we are global today as the world is so small now ,it is a place for all,one day there will be just one language on this planet,a mix of all.


----------



## panjabigator

I just remembered...India invaded East Pakistan/Bangladesh in 1971 during their war of independence against what was West Pakistan....but it was to help the Bangladeshi's.


----------



## CrazyIvan

you may find my following remarks harsh but please consider my attitude toward your government and toward you as a person and a fellow on this forum seperately.



			
				coconutpalm said:
			
		

> No offended indeed, Ivan. Although I myself (
> and most people around me as well) firmly believe that we should reunite, I keep wondering how Taiwanese would feel when being aimed at with missiles by fellow citizens.


 
Living under a constant threat is not a comforting feeling for sure. Expecially has been pointed by those who claim they are the same people as you are.

I am not sure if you notice the fact that in 1996 your PLA fired 3(or 2) missile over Taipei city, in order to influence the presidential election on the island? Aslo, the same year PLA has surrounding a remote island closed to Fukien province and the commander of the island commited suicide?

That is the feeling to live under 300 or 400 (and continuously growming) missile.

The world turns their eyes blind to this issue mainly because the economic potential lies in Chinese market. Yet, lots of Taiwanese consider it in the same way as well, our government tried hard to remain our integrity while forming the policy for improvment of bilateral relationship.

Whether we are the same "citizen" of "a country" or not is another story. I would be happy to open another thread and discuss this idea with you an your fellow chinese people. However, the intention to "make" us under the same country has fit the definition of "invasion"(or the intention of invasion) therefore is good for this discussion I assume. The action of military deployment, yearly military maneuvors and the aggressive remarks on international meetings has been considered as "invasion" or "offense" to Taiwan as a sole political identity.  That is another way of invasion, as many of us regard, and that is why there are still quite strong resistence on our island against China.(or say, PRC government)

Remeber, we do not pay tax to your government. We have our own army, passport, diplomatic relations, interior policies and all things considered as part of sovereignty on the island. We have our government system and therefore election has been held for almost every year. We are not happy with our current president but only we, who have Taiwan citizenship can use their ballet to disaprove it.

Culture and Ethnic is not the sole determinants of nation. This argument can hardly satisfy Taiwanese people and persuade them the unification is a good option. Political system does make difference, since we two haven't rule each other for 50 years, the claims of Taiwan from PRC government is somehow rediculous. 



> The cost would be too high once war broke out.


 
Yes, the cost is definitely too high and no one wants it.  Both of our government should take it seriously. However, we really expect some more due respect from your government.


----------



## maxiogee

panjabigator said:
			
		

> I just remembered...India invaded East Pakistan/Bangladesh in 1971 during their war of independence against what was West Pakistan....but it was to help the Bangladeshi's.



I think you'll find that it was to help India also. No country invadeas anywhere, or goes to war, without seeing some interest in it for itself. Could India's assistance have been designed to help weaken Pakistan, and to get the Bangladeshi's "on side" with India?


----------



## coconutpalm

CrazyIvan said:
			
		

> you may find my following remarks harsh but please consider my attitude toward your government and toward you as a person and a fellow on this forum seperately.


</p>Harsh remarks, yes, but you are definitely trying to be as neutral (not politically neutral, of course. I can't, either.) as possible, aren't you? I'm glad to see that. This thread has been too tense.I didn't know the events you described in 1996. I am sorry for that, but at that time, I was only 9 years old, and totally ignorant of the outside world. However, I can't help feeling ashamed of what our government did if it was true. And as I don't see why you, a honest person telling from your posts, should deceive me, so I think, although painful, that I should accept it as the truth.Someone advised me not to post this thread because it would be too political. I said I would try my best not to have it go that way, but apparently I was too wrong. It's totally political (or in many cases, religious) thing to conquer or invade other country, but it is always the people that have to undergo the agony, pay the tax or debts.As some Japanese friends and Maxiogee pointed out, politicians often deliberately have something omitted from the textbooks and medias. They may argue " we don't twist/distort anything, do we?" However, to omit something is to have the audience ignorant of something, which spoils the completeness of the truth, thus is a form of "distortion".I'm not sure whether we are talking about the same thing concerning Tibet. In the Civil War from 1946 to 1949, we liberated or we believed we were liberating all the people on this land of China. (I'm not defending for the government then, but just stating the truth. Don't AGAIN get me wrong) Here arises another intersting or infuriating issue: due to or not due to the effort of politicians, the invaders (I use this none for the sake of simplicity, not always recognized by all, or the majority) often don't think they are invading others. And we often hear this saying: the history is written by the victor.To prove this, we can simply look at the word "history", his-story, written by men, who have been overwhelming women for a long long time.BTW, the mod said we are not going off-topic, just need to keep calm.


----------



## urizon9

As the question was posed by a forumista from China first what comes to my mind is the long overdue occupation of Tibet by the Chinese.With no desire to be involved in this delicate topic I still need to correct mistakes made by Etcetera.a)There is no Estonian Legion existing today,therefore there is no `situation`concerning it.b)I`d really not use the word `scary`when someone has to learn the language of native people.I imagine it was quite SCARY when hundreds of thousands from the Baltic were transported in the cattle wagons into the Siberian labour camps.Hoping for better understanding among peoples and eternal brotherhood,urizon9


----------



## Pivra

Invaders can be good too, example :  Do people in India think the Kushans' invasion was benefitial to India (Kanishka Maharaj, Buddhist arts, India expanded back into Sogdia and Bactria etc etc.)? Would they rather be under the weak Sunga?


----------



## coconutpalm

Alexander the Great, Napoleon were great because his invasion expanded the culture; the Roman Empire was adored because it raised the living standard of most of its people; The ancient China was great because, wow, so many different races/ ethic groups were influenced by our great culture! HOwever, the invaded probably have another opinion. they were invaded, for many cases tortured, suffered, and forgot.


----------



## Fernando

In the case of Napoleon, I would hardly say that it expanded "the culture" (unless you call rapes, burning and destruction "culture"). 

I see your point anyway. I acknowledge that in many cases invasions (in the long term) has had a positive effect for the "invadees"(?)


----------



## panjabigator

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I think you'll find that it was to help India also. No country invadeas anywhere, or goes to war, without seeing some interest in it for itself. Could India's assistance have been designed to help weaken Pakistan, and to get the Bangladeshi's "on side" with India?



Definitely...no one does things just to "be nice" nowadays anyway, right?


----------



## Outsider

panjabigator said:
			
		

> Definitely...no one does things just to "be nice" *nowadays* anyway, right?


Or ever has. At least not governments.


----------



## maxiogee

coconutpalm said:
			
		

> Alexander the Great, Napoleon were great because his invasion expanded the culture;


… at the expense of whatever cultures they were invading, and overthrowing.




			
				coconutpalm said:
			
		

> the Roman Empire was adored because it raised the living standard of most of its people;


It raised the standard of Roman people undoubtedly, but it was an empire which needed slaves and the wealth of other nations to keep it going. When these dried up it died.
Harvesting the people and the riches of other nations is hardly raising their standard!




> The ancient China was great because, wow, so many different races/ ethic groups were influenced by our great culture! HOwever, the invaded probably have another opinion. they were invaded, for many cases tortured, suffered, and forgot.


The ancient Chinese also built a wall which not only kept invaders out, but kept out ideas from foreign places — and of course it kept the Chinese in, also! Defensive walls are also prisons.


----------



## Outsider

coconutpalm said:
			
		

> Alexander the Great, Napoleon were great because his invasion expanded the culture; the Roman Empire was adored because it raised the living standard of most of its people; The ancient China was great because, wow, so many different races/ ethic groups were influenced by our great culture! HOwever, the invaded probably have another opinion. they were invaded, for many cases tortured, suffered, and forgot.


Hmm, I could tell you about Napoleon... Suffice it to say that his armies also stole a lot from the places they occupied. Ironically, Napoleon eventually did a lot of damage to France, as well: instead of saving the Republic from the monarchists, as he had set out to do, he ended up just delaying its demize.

And Alexander the Great... granted, he saved Greece from Persian conquest, but what about the destruction of Persepolis?


----------



## maxiogee

Outsider said:
			
		

> Hmm, I could tell you about Napoleon... Suffice it to say that his armies also stole a lot from the places they occupied.



You say that, Outsider, as if no other army ever did the same — they *all* do.


----------



## Outsider

> You say that, Outsider, as if no other army ever did the same— they *all* do.


I did not mean to suggest otherwise.


----------



## Fernando

maxiogee said:
			
		

> You say that, Outsider, as if no other army ever did the same — they *all* do.



Let us say that Nap's armies were specially good in doing that.


----------



## CrazyIvan

coconutpalm said:
			
		

> Harsh remarks, yes, but you are definitely trying to be as neutral (not politically neutral, of course. I can't, either.) as possible, aren't you? I'm glad to see that. This thread has been too tense.I didn't know the events you described in 1996. I am sorry for that, but at that time, I was only 9 years old, and totally ignorant of the outside world.


 
This sis the link  , I hope you can see it although your government monitoring the internet.

But, I made a mistake. There were two missiles, one aimed outside Taipei city the other aimed outside Kaohsiung city. And PLA surrounded two small islands, and the commander of one island committed suicide. ( under great pressure I believe.)

I hope you won't get into trouble since you have raised these topic, especially if you live in mainland currently. There are so many information you do not/or the government purposely prevent people from knowing the truth.

I hope this facts can get you understand the feeling of Taiwanese people. As an invadee ( which we ususally WERE/ARE), we have carry our fate and try hard to be strong.



> However, I can't help feeling ashamed of what our government did if it was true. And as I don't see why you, a honest person telling from your posts, should deceive me, so I think, although painful, that I should accept it as the truth.


 
May I demand apology from your govenment ?  (kidding.)


----------



## CrazyIvan

coconutpalm said:
			
		

> The ancient China was great because, wow, so many different races/ethnic groups were influenced by our great culture!


 
oh, Dear Coconut Palm,

The ancient Chinese history contains a lot of invasion, and it is too "great" a mess to distinguish who is right and who is wrong.

If you have ever read a novel written by 二月河, setting in Ching Dynasty and regarding all anecdotes about Emperor Qianlong, you will find how sad the minority ethnic groups fighting for perservation of their own territory adn integrity. I am not saying that the novel offering reliable history sources, however, it may offer you another way of thinking about the Chinese history and culture.

I used to think in the same way as you are, since my textbook teaching me that China is a peace-loving contry and we "peacefully-unified" different ethnic groups within one great culutre. But afterwards I learned that things can never be this easy. You have to conquer someone (usually by violence) to make someone adapt your ideology of thinking/living/politics/religion. So, that is all about the matters of warfare.


----------



## Brioche

maxiogee said:
			
		

> … at the expense of whatever cultures they were invading, and overthrowing.
> 
> 
> It raised the standard of Roman people undoubtedly, but it was an empire which needed slaves and the wealth of other nations to keep it going. When these dried up it died.
> Harvesting the people and the riches of other nations is hardly raising their standard!


 
There are other ways of looking at it.
The local war-lords probably didn't like have their monopolies challenged, but for the average, run of the mill, inhabitant of the Roman Empire, Roman rule brought stability, order and the rule of law [by and large]. 
That was probably better than the inter-tribal raiding [also harvesting people and riches] that characterised the area before the Romans came and after they left.

Huge numbers in Africa are worse off now that the imperialists are gone, and the local thugs are running the show. The King of Swaziland spends millions on himself and his dozen wives, while 70% of his people live below the poverty line, and have the world's highest rate of HIV/AIDS.
Then there's Zimbabwe ...


----------



## Gato_Gordo

> Originally Posted by *danielfranco*
> _Ah, Mexico... It stands as a solitary figure in the sense that it has never carried out a successful invasion
> (as far as I know, but how far is that, really? No one knows...)
> The one country I am sure that Mexico did try to invade was the erstwhile Republic of Texas. Then, enter Sam Huston. Remember the Alamo, and all that jazz...
> Back in its pre-Colombus history, the nations within what is now known as central Mexico would invade each other every other Tuesday, it seems, never holding the territories for long... Until the Aztecs (Mexicas) arrived in the scene and "smooshed" everyone else and imposed their order, there was no Mexico. The Aztecs invented Mexico. And then the Spanish came and "smooshed" them into oblivion....
> I think that, even now, the defeatist and despondent attitude prevalent in many areas of the Mexican culture (mainly the State) might be traced back to the very definite Spanish conquest and almost obliteration of the Mexicans over five hundred years ago._


I would like to note that this statement does not reflect the thoughts and feelings of the majority of the mexican people, specifically of those of the mexicans who still work day by day to make this country a better place than it was when they were born here, we thank you all for your understanding ( ´ー｀)―♪


----------



## coconutpalm

Oh, surely my poor English failed me once more! So many of you quoted my post! I didn't list those examples to say that I think the people and country were truly great. Actually, I was (or intended to)emphasing on the second part, and trying to say that only the generations long after or the conquerer would say the invaders are great. Sorry for my really poor English! (Should I cry into my pillow?)


----------



## murena

vince said:
			
		

> Canadian territory has not been invaded in its entire history. Nor have we invaded anyone. But we are a small country isolated from everyone except the U.S. so that is understandable. However when we were a British colony there were a couple of wars between the British, French, and Americans on what is now Canadian soil.


 
I agree that Canada as a nation has not been invaded, but the territory, well, you just have to ask the First Nations about it...


----------



## 3.1416

That is a very good point!!!
As far as i remember thr first nations (a.k.a. Natives-indians or the like) were badly invaded by those guys who trade booze for lands.
In the not-so-fancy cities in Canada you still can see this people drinking and homeless.
And there is some sort of racism against them.
I remember some brat guys acting nasty at one of them.
I was indignated and people saw that, so we went down and talked with this boys.
How could people blind their eyes?!
I remember all canadians as cool people, but there are sides everyone pretends to forget or ignore.


----------



## Tropic Lightning

The United States was invaded by the Japan in 1942 in the Aleutian Islands, part of modern day Alaska. They took over the islands of Attu and Kiska. The battle lasted from June 6th 1942 till August 15th 1943. You could also say the US was invaded by Japan at Guam and Wake Island, which are both current US territories.

Russia invaded Japan and took over the Kurile Islands and took over the Japanese part of Sakhalin Island in 1945.

China did invade Vietnam in 1979 and invaded India in 1962, and occupied a part of Indian controlled Kashmir. They still occupy it to this day.


----------



## Pivra

Why do we have countries anyway? When actually we, as a planet, are so small and powerless. Why can't we live together?


----------



## coconutpalm

I don't know. And who knows? I remember someone ever saying that "humans are born political beings." And someone else says that "all things are concerning economy".


----------



## modus.irrealis

vince said:
			
		

> Canadian territory has not been invaded in its entire history.


But I think those Danes are up to something .


----------



## The Extraordinary

Greece was invaded in 1453 (known as part of the Byzantium Empire) by the Ottomans (it lasted approximately 400 yrs) and then in WWII by the Germans and the Italians (it lasted approximately 4 yrs)


----------



## Fernando

Extraordinary, could I add some nuances?

Greece was invaded before (within the Byzatium Empire) by Venetians, Crusaders (1204) and afterwards Spaniards from Aragon Crown. I think that before were short-time invasions by Bulgarians and Serbians.

Greece itself was invaded by Ottomans before Byzantium itself was seized, but too lazy to check the date.


----------



## The Extraordinary

yeah, I know but those were the main ivasions. I don't mean that the previous invasions were not that important, it's just that those I mentioned had the greatest impact in Greece itself. You mentioned the Crusaders. Indeed, they invaded the Byzandium (Constantinople more specifically, now known as Instanbul) but not Greece. At least, I don't know something about that!


----------



## ireney

Extraordinary back to your schoolbooks! What do you mean you know nothing about it? Sleeping during History courses eh?  

Anyway, Greece was invaded piece-meal by the Ottomans so you won't find _a_ date.


----------



## xymox

vince said:
			
		

> Canadian territory has not been invaded in its entire history. Nor have we invaded anyone. But we are a small country isolated from everyone except the U.S. so that is understandable. However when we were a British colony there were a couple of wars between the British, French, and Americans on what is now Canadian soil.


 
Ah? And where did my ancestors come from then?


----------



## xymox

Brioche said:
			
		

> Every country has either been invaded or has invaded other countries.
> Most countries have done both at some stage in their history.
> 
> Governments frequently encourage fear of their neighbours to distract the people's attention from internal problems.


 
I would say this is the most reasonable comment. 

Although it is fait to say that Canada, as a nation, has never invaded other countries.


----------



## maxiogee

jgagnon said:
			
		

> I would say this is the most reasonable comment.
> 
> Although it is fait to say that Canada, as a nation, has never invaded other countries.



No, I suppose the invaders weren't technically "Canada" when they were being territorially acquisitive!


----------



## Tensai

toscairn said:
			
		

> China's patriotic education, even jingoistic education, is characterized by "hate Japan, hate Japan," which is a stark contrast to Japan's "live peacefully with other nations, hand in hand; together we will prosper." China teaches hate, but Japan teaches love.


 
really? then would you mind to explain the reasons why Chinese and Koreans faces strong racism in Japan?


----------



## Tensai

Please stop talking about how much money did Japan pay to China.
And I don't care whether the number of deaths is exaggerated or not, 30000 or 300000, does not matter, the fact is that Japanese did commit cruel crimes in China.

Like I said,I don't care about whether Japan give money to China or not, all I want is a formal and sincere apology from Japan.

We can forgive, but forgiveness can only occur if the other person admits the wrong, apologizes and shows that he is willing to change.

*Mod Note:  *Please see Rule # 22





> Except as a topic of discussion, chatspeak and SMS style are not acceptable. *Members must do their best to write using standard language forms*.



This is inclusive of proper capitalisation and punctuation.  Thank you.


----------



## coconutpalm

I can't help wondering whether racism is constrained to certain area or country or people. I don't think so. Well, that's a deviation from the thread. I will return. I read a lot reports about the racism against Chinese in many countries. Some cases in Indonesia were the most notorious, and they didn't happen in Japan, I must admit. However, I am definitely for this: 





> We can forgive, but forgiveness can only occur if the other person admits the wrong, apologizes and shows that he is willing to change.


----------



## Pivra

coconutpalm said:
			
		

> I can't help wondering whether racism is constrained to certain area or country or people. I don't think so. Well, that's a deviation from the thread. I will return. I read a lot reports about the racism against Chinese in many countries. Some cases in Indonesia were the most notorious, and they didn't happen in Japan, I must admit. However, I am definitely for this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can forgive, but forgiveness can only occur if the other person admits the wrong, apologizes and shows that he is willing to change.
Click to expand...

 
 If you see how lots of them act in other countries in Asia you will understand. If they hate people with brown skins then they may just as well leave southeast asia. 

this is not for you, but for them


----------



## capsi

panjabigator said:
			
		

> I just remembered...India invaded East Pakistan/Bangladesh in 1971 during their war of independence against what was West Pakistan....but it was to help the Bangladeshi's.


 

India never invaded Pakistan first, India was helping the bengalis in East-pakistan for their freedom ,they were not even allowed to talk in their mother tounge bengali,but forced to learn and speak in Urdu,the official language of Westpakistan now Pakistan.Though most of them were muslims pakistani khans never considered the bengali muslims as pure muslims so they butchered them even inside mosques, nearly 3million bengalis (hindus/muslims ) were murdered and 10million fleed to India mainly in Westbengal ,Tripura,Assam.
The refugee problem was so big to handle that Indira Gandhi then PM of India was trying to convince the international community to force pakistan to stop killing of bengalis and release of Muzibar Raheman the leader of Eastbengal ,who was in Lahore jail.Though he was elected the PM of whole Pakistan ,since he was bengali and the Pak-military was controled by the Punjabi/Urdu speaking muslim they never allowed him to be the PM, insted they put him in jail.

The Pakistanis panicked and wanted to open the western front to reduce the presence of indian military in eastern front ( i.e the eastbengal now bangladesh) and the Pak-airforce attacked most probably the Amritsar base, and thats how the war started.They asked China to open a eastern front but it did not due to USSR, and USA was trying to help Pakistan but before their help came the war was over. In the western front Indian army entered indise Lahore and near Islamabad , but India never took one inch of pakistani land when war was over.

and the war lasted for just few days and pakistani general in eastbengal surrendered with 91000 military personal, which is till now a record.

India never invaded any country to occupy it in its known history 3000yrs or more.
The reason is, it is the Birth place of "Lord Budha" ," Ashoka" , and "M.K.Gandhi ".....

om shanti..om shanti..om shanti


----------



## maxiogee

capsi said:
			
		

> India never invaded any country to occupy it in its known history 3000yrs or more.
> The reason is, it is the Birth place of "Lord Budha" ," Ashoka" , and "M.K.Gandhi ".....



That's an unusual statement.
How would being the birthplace of those people be the 'reason' it never invaded anywhere to occupy it?

What about Sri Lanka?
"By the middle of the ninth century, the Pandyans had risen to a position of ascendancy in southern India, invaded northern Sri Lanka, and sacked Anuradhapura. The Pandyans demanded an indemnity as a price for their withdrawal."

The threat seems to have been accede to our demands or we occupy?


----------



## capsi

maxiogee said:
			
		

> That's an unusual statement.
> How would being the birthplace of those people be the 'reason' it never invaded anywhere to occupy it?
> 
> What about Sri Lanka?
> "By the middle of the ninth century, the Pandyans had risen to a position of ascendancy in southern India, invaded northern Sri Lanka, and sacked Anuradhapura. The Pandyans demanded an indemnity as a price for their withdrawal."
> 
> The threat seems to have been accede to our demands or we occupy?


 
well, what i wanted to say that ,socity ,environment ,your way of life
dictates your thoughts,since indian were by nature much more peaceful ,may be due to their religious beliefe or stable life style (as india is always very much furtile and rich in every thing,thats why every one invaded india) its the birth place of Budhism, Jainism, Hinduism and which in return influence more ppl.

India then in ninth century is not todays India , it included  afganisthan,pakistan,bangladesh,even shimhal now srilanka. And whenever there where no strong ruler small kindom appeared with in india and who faught against eachother a lot, as u have given a example.Now if a small local kingdom wanted to expand which happend through out indian history , you can not call it a invasion by India of other countries.

Peninsular India was involved in an eighth-century tripartite power struggle among the Chalukyas (556-757) of Vatapi, the Pallavas (300-888) of Kanchipuram, and the Pandyas (seventh through the tenth centuries) of Madurai. The Chalukya rulers were overthrown by their subordinates, the Rashtrakutas, who ruled from 753 to 973. Although both the Pallava and Pandya kingdoms were enemies, the real struggle for political domination was between the Pallava and Chalukya realms.

this type of fighting was common during all ages of indian history, even during the last period of Mughal Empire and the begining  of British rule.


----------



## maxiogee

capsi said:
			
		

> well, what i wanted to say that ,socity ,environment ,your way of life
> dictates your thoughts,


I think we could probably agree that nations, over a prolonged period, can change the type of society they 'produce'.

You said originally…


> India never invaded any country to occupy it in its known history 3000yrs or more.



and now you say…


> India then in ninth century is not todays India
> <snip>
> Now if a small local kingdom wanted to expand which happend through out indian history , you can not call it a invasion by India of other countries.



Either you are looking back over "its known history 3000yrs or more" or you are only speaking of since "in the ninth century" - you cannot have it both ways.

I think you are beginning to quibble about things which others might dispute.
The Sri Lankans might argue with you about whether it was (a) an invasion, and (b) of Indian origin.

I am not looking to beat Inda with a big stick, but it is easy for people to decide that some of their history can be ignored whilst highlighting that of others.


----------



## Jhorer Brishti

capsi said:
			
		

> India never invaded any country to occupy it in its known history 3000yrs or more.


 
As maxiogee has already stated, this is a rather general and untrue statement to make. There were only certain periods of near/entire unification of the subcontinent(mainly the Maurya and Gupta empires) and other than these most of the kingdoms in ancient India were princely states or individualized nations(somewhat like the different European countries). These of course invaded each other on a regular basis. India has also had major influences and empires across Southeast Asia(excluding Vietnam), mainly Thailand,Indonesia, Burma,Laos and Malaysia.. All of these cultural influences that stretch from Iran to Southeast Asia(Tibet and the western provinces of China are also influenced) seem unlikely to have been due to peaceful migrations/spread of thoughts and culture..

  As somewhat of an aside, the Bangladeshi government blames *everything* on India..

Modern India was invaded by China over the disputed territories of Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin..

Regarding the enmity between Korea,China and Japan, I was wondering whether anyone knew if Koreans are more hateful and unforgiving of the Japanese since Japan did carry out the worst form of colonialism on Korea and her citizens(somewhat ironic as Japan was the only eastern imperial power at the time). Namely what comes to mind is the gruesome murder of Queen Min and the horrors of being occupied in general....


----------



## Qcumber

coconutpalm said:
			
		

> China has a recorded history of about 6,000 years. In its long long history, it had invaded other countries or had many smaller countries as its tributary states. On the other hand, since 1840, China became a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country and China was to a large extent invaded. In the World War II, it was invaded by Japan.


 
You forgot China was occupied by the Mandchus from 1644 to 1911!


----------



## coconutpalm

No, I don't think China was invaded by Mandchus. The Han race was conquered, I'd say. Anyway, Han people haven't been pure blood since long long time ago. Actually, I doubt whether there has been a "true" Han person except at the very very beginning. If you count the Qing Dynasty as an invasion over China, well, how about Yuan Dynasty, Jin nation, Liao nation, etc. etc? And again, the emperors of the great Tang Dynasty are said to have "alien" blood. No, I don't think those were invasions for China.


----------



## capsi

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Either you are looking back over "its known history 3000yrs or more" or you are only speaking of since "in the ninth century" - you cannot have it both ways.
> 
> The Sri Lankans might argue with you about whether it was (a) an invasion, and (b) of Indian origin.
> 
> I am not looking to beat Inda with a big stick, but it is easy for people to decide that some of their history can be ignored whilst highlighting that of others.


 
well maxiogee, what i ment by saying that todays india is not the india used to be ,because todays Afganistan,Pakistan,Bagladesh even part of Burma were together called india.Even in Ramayana/Mahavarata you will find the name Gandhar which is modern day Afganistan or Lanka which is modern day Srilanka.Then it was all with in hindu civilization upto south east asia (im not sayin southeast asia was with in india but it was a hindu-civilization),then came Budhism,and its spread throughout india, to modern day Afganistan( i hope you remember the Bamiyan Budha which those Taliban destroyed) Tibet to central asia.Then came Islam to india through iran-Afganisthan, and due to presence of Iran and Arab and their regular invasion afganistan, later pakistan became mostly muslim.At the end of Mugal empire due to the weaking of the empire Afganistan became a separated from India. Then came the British and they did the rest by separating pakistan and east-pakistan(now Bangladesh).So what was india then , after 19th or 20th century four-five different countries.
So you can't call those invasion ,the fights between the different states within india,these fights were regular when there was no strong empire in india.And if I see history by that angle then i have to say that Mauryas or Guptas had invaded Pakistan or Bangladesh, i think you will agree that will not be a correct history because these countries never existed before 1947 and 1971.

As far as Srilanka is concernd it is a really a indian origin be it the religion,culture,language.Srilanka is partly Tamil-hindu and Simhali-buddhist
The Great Asoka send his daughter Sangamitra to then Simhala now srilanka to spread the knowledge of Budha.Till now both cultures are same.

Jorer Brishti says....


> As somewhat of an aside, the Bangladeshi government blames *everything* on India..


 
well , you see to some culture religion comes first,then country, Islam is one of them, you got freedom from pakistani atrocities by the free help from india, international community not even botherd to hear you ppl, more than hundred indian soldiers died for your freedom. India never wanted anything in return except friendship,but with in 25 yrs you forget all wrong doing by Pakistan ,since you make your country a Islamic nation from a secular one,like the Pakistanis. so you have to or you must blame all against india!!! Though we have more muslims living in india than in Pakistan or Bangladesh.


----------



## Jhorer Brishti

capsi said:
			
		

> Jorer Brishti says....
> 
> 
> well , you see to some culture religion comes first,then country, Islam is one of them, you got freedom from pakistani atrocities by the free help from india, international community not even botherd to hear you ppl, more than hundred indian soldiers died for your freedom. India never wanted anything in return except friendship,but with in 25 yrs you forget all wrong doing by Pakistan ,since you make your country a Islamic nation from a secular one,like the Pakistanis. so you have to or you must blame all against india!!! Though we have more muslims living in india than in Pakistan or Bangladesh.


 
       woah... no need to get so revved up over there.. I didn't mean to make passions fly.. I was just making an off-hand comment about how inefficient governments are and that international rivalries are mainly between governments.. My comment was meant to be somewhat cynical and should have been taken as a joke.. It seems that you misunderstood so I apologize if I've offended you.. 
   At any rate Bangladesh and Indonesia according to World censuses are the most secular muslim nations in the world. Although I will concede that the current party is more conservative. The main qualms in Bangladesh are against the building of the Farraka dam(by India) which were not heeded... I don't think we want to delve into politics so please keep that in mind if you reply..


----------



## panjabigator

> Then came Islam to india through iran-Afganisthan, and due to presence of Iran and Arab and their regular invasion afganistan, later pakistan became mostly muslim.



Just a side note...Pakistan didn't become muslim....western (and eastern) India became Pakistan.  Those people had been practicing muslims for centuries.  

Jhorer, I am very interested to know why India recieves all the blame...I was unaware of this.  What is the perception of the Indian involvement in the 1971 war?  While I acknowledge that India probably wasn't just "aiding" Bangladesh, I assumed that Indian involvement was appreciated and needed.  In any event, India (the government and fundamentalists) took any opportunity to "stick it" to the Pakstani government.  I have a Pakistani friend that told me a Bangladeshi couple said to them that "hameN  aap logoN ko nahiiN chhod.naa chahiye tha" (We shouldn't of left/seperated from you).  Is that a minority sentiment? They quite possible were Mohajirs...I do not see why any other Bangladeshi community would feel that way...


----------



## Jhorer Brishti

panjabigator said:
			
		

> Just a side note...Pakistan didn't become muslim....western (and eastern) India became Pakistan. Those people had been practicing muslims for centuries.
> 
> Jhorer, I am very interested to know why India recieves all the blame...I was unaware of this. What is the perception of the Indian involvement in the 1971 war? While I acknowledge that India probably wasn't just "aiding" Bangladesh, I assumed that Indian involvement was appreciated and needed. In any event, India (the government and fundamentalists) took any opportunity to "stick it" to the Pakstani government. I have a Pakistani friend that told me a Bangladeshi couple said to them that "hameN aap logoN ko nahiiN chhod.naa chahiye tha" (We shouldn't of left/seperated from you). Is that a minority sentiment? They quite possible were Mohajirs...I do not see why any other Bangladeshi community would feel that way...


 
I think that those sorts of statements are just a form of courtesy..heh The same thing happens when Bangladeshis talk with Indians. Most of them are quite patriotic in every other sense(so much as it becomes a problem for those who were born in the West, like me and would like nothing better than to assimilate...) In any case it's a pipe dream and I think people should be more concerned with developing the nations instead of entertaining such grandiose dreams..
With regards to India being blamed for a lot of Bangladesh's problems, the truth is I am not so well versed in politics and as such I'm not exactly sure what the current reasons are.. Basically it could be due to the fact that India wields the most power in South Asia(naturally) and this is offputting to the smaller nations. We can see this sort of animosity playing out in Nepal and Sri Lanka(See! It's not just the muslim nations).. There was even an article I read once where the author thought that Nepal would soon become absorbed into India..


----------



## Fernando

coconutpalm said:
			
		

> No, I don't think China was invaded by Mandchus. The Han race was conquered, I'd say. Anyway, Han people haven't been pure blood since long long time ago. Actually, I doubt whether there has been a "true" Han person except at the very very beginning. If you count the Qing Dynasty as an invasion over China, well, how about Yuan Dynasty, Jin nation, Liao nation, etc. etc? And again, the emperors of the great Tang Dynasty are said to have "alien" blood. No, I don't think those were invasions for China.



Don't you think Yuan dinasty was an invasion?  

Was a courtesy visit?


----------



## El Guasio

My country had never conducted any military invasion of any other country.

Regarding the reasons behind hatred and desdain that persists for ages among conqueror/invaded people, I think racism has something to do with it.

Nationalism as a reaffimation of national and cultural pride is a moral duty, racism is other thing and it has nothing to do with moral duties.

I think racism explains many of the examples you have given in this thread, i.e. Japan/China, Thai/Burma, etc.


----------



## maxiogee

El Guasio said:
			
		

> My country had never conducted any military invasion of any other country.



How, then, did Spain acquire her colonies?


----------



## El Guasio

I do speak Spanish, but my country is not Spain.

My country had been invaded more than once, attacked many times.  But had never invaded militarily any other country.

I think racism has much to do with the problem between japanese and chinese.


----------



## Tatzingo

El Guasio said:
			
		

> I do speak Spanish, but my country is not Spain.
> 
> My country had been invaded more than once, attacked many times.  But had never invaded militarily any other country.



Exactly WHICH country are you talking about?

Tatz.


----------



## El Guasio

Puerto Rico


----------



## xena9

El Guasio said:
			
		

> Puerto Rico


Puerto Rico = Puerto Ricans have US passports = your country = United States of America.

Sorry, but your country has invaded lots of countries...


----------



## El Guasio

Ha, ha, ha.

My country is still Puerto Rico and Puerto Rico has never invaded militarily any country.

Puertorricans have invaded many countries as US soldiers, but again my country has never invaded militarily any other country.

Most Puertorricans feel Puerto Rico is our country and think of USA as another country.


----------



## maxiogee

I have no doubt that Puerto Ricans see their land as a country. Ireland knows the feeling. But I would point out a few things…

From a UN PDF…
On 23 December 2000, President Clinton issued a 
“Memorandum for the Heads of Executive 
Departments and Agencies” on the subject of the 
resolution of Puerto Rico’s status. The memorandum 
read as follows: 
“Although Puerto Rico was acquired in 
connection with the Spanish-American War and 
United States citizenship is granted to persons 
born on the islands, Puerto Rico’s ultimate status 
has not been determined."

And from the 2006 World Book
"Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the United States. The U.S. Congress is responsible for governing Puerto Rico, but the island exercises self-government in all local affairs."

and

"Politics. Political parties that get at least 5 percent of the vote cast in elections receive financial aid from a government fund. Puerto Rico's two leading parties are the New Progressive Party, which wants Puerto Rico to become a U.S. state; and the Popular Democratic Party, which favors continuing the island's commonwealth status. A third party is the Independence Party, which favors independence for the island."


----------



## Blackleaf

oxazol said:
			
		

> In Europe it is a bit different.


 
Except England, which hasn't successfully been invaded since way back in 1066.


----------



## Blackleaf

luis masci said:
			
		

> Yeah, in 1982 my country Argentina, invaded UK.
> Well… as a matter of fact it was 2 small islands belonging to UK.
> … and located about 10.000 miles from UK.
> …but only 400 miles from Argentina
> ….and situated on Argentinean sea.
> UK recuperated these islands after a short war.
> Sorry, now I think about it, I’m not sure it was really what we can say properly an invasion.


 
What does it matter how close they are to Argentina?  Brazil is close to Argentina so, according to you, Brazil should belong to Argentina.

The Falklands rightfully belong to Britain as they were owned by Britain before Argentina even existed.


----------



## maxiogee

Blackleaf said:
			
		

> Except England, which hasn't successfully been invaded since way back in 1066.



As the question was "ever been invaded", the 'when' is not important!


----------



## Fernando

Blackleaf said:
			
		

> Except England, which hasn't successfully been invaded since way back in 1066.



I beg to disagree. 

We have (setting aside many many invasions from Wales and Scotland):

* 1139: The Angevines (with English internal support) invade England and seize the country.

* 1689: William of Hannover (with Dutch and German troops) defeats the English king.

* 1746: Jacobite invasion of Scotland and England (mostly with Scottish troops, agreed).

* 1940: Germans occupy Channel Islands.

* 1981: Argentines occupy Malvinas/Falkland Islands. 

Of course, if you reword your phrase to: British "continental" soil has never been invaded without significant internal support since 1066, I fully agree with you.


----------



## Tatzingo

Fernando said:
			
		

> I beg to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Blackleaf*
> _Except *England*, which hasn't *successfully* *been invaded *since way back in 1066._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have (setting aside many many invasions from Wales and Scotland):
> 
> * 1139: The Angevines (with English internal support) invade England and seize the country.
> 
> * 1689: William of Hannover (with Dutch and German troops) defeats the English king. *WHERE?*
> 
> * 1746: Jacobite invasion of Scotland and England (mostly with Scottish troops, agreed).
> 
> * 1940: Germans occupy Channel Islands. *NOT ENGLAND (British Channel Islands)*
> 
> * 1981: Argentines occupy Malvinas/Falkland Islands. *NOT ENGLAND*
> 
> Of course, if you reword your phrase to: British "continental" soil has never been invaded without significant internal support since 1066, I fully agree with you.
Click to expand...


----------



## Fernando

I have taken intentionally England = UK.

If you take England as the kingdom inside UK, there were several invasions of England from Scotland (William Wallace's, as an example) or Wales. Most of them were complete failures.

About Channel Islands and Malvinas/Falkland I think you are right and they are not attached to one particular kingdom (Eng, Scot, NI).


----------



## El Guasio

When women feel depressed they go out shopping or eating, men instead invade some country.

Superficial maybe, but lets lighten life.


----------



## El Guasio

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I think you'll find that it was to help India also. No country invadeas anywhere, or goes to war, without seeing some interest in it for itself. Could India's assistance have been designed to help weaken Pakistan, and to get the Bangladeshi's "on side" with India?



"Dividi, vinci" would say Julius Cesar (i.e. divide and conquer)

This thought makes me wonder what will eventually happen between a terrorist nation as Pakistan who also happens to have nuclear power and thanks to President Bush have no debt and India?  Maybe this will be a good thread for another forum, mmm.


----------



## Fernando

El Guasio said:
			
		

> When women feel depressed they go out shopping or eating, men instead invade some country.
> 
> Superficial maybe, but lets lighten life.



Maybe Indira Gandhi and Mrs. Thatcher found the malls closed?


----------



## panjabigator

> Originally Posted by *El Guasio*
> _When women feel depressed they go out shopping or eating, men instead invade some country.
> 
> Superficial maybe, but lets lighten life.
> _



You're kidding, right?


----------



## Luciaz

I just want to share with you my view on some points you've mentioned on this thread:
1st: several, if not all, southamerican countries have suffered military regimes, promoted and supported by powerful countries, mainly the USA, which have been extremely violent, cruel and all you can imagine (only in my country and only in ONE of those regimes, 30 thousand people dissapeared, most after being tortured (the way American militars taught ours), and only God knows how many babies born in cells were sold or simply distributted, and of course they have been deprived of their real identity. (Fortunately, some have been found)
2nd: it was during the last military regime that "the militaries" invaded the Falklands; in fact, most of those who fought were not even soldiers, they were simple boys, many aged 18; some were forced to fight and many were deceived, just like the rest of the country.
3rd: the USA government does not need to invade us because we are already giving them everything they need from us. Military regimes during the last century created economy conditions which make us now, and probably for ever, dependant on foreign economies, again mainly from the USA. (militaries borrowed so much money..., and then almost the whole country, land and services, were sold to American and European companies in a way that is not globalization but almost "invasion", the correct word would be in Spanish "apropiación"
4th: American militaries do not need to invade us; we already give them permission to enter our country, to do military training in our lands and so on, and of course they have international privilege (immunity?, I don't have the word now) to do whatever they want.
But don't worry, this was just a personal comment, and of course I know that most of these problems are _our _problems, but I do believe that powerful countries, let's say in our case the USA, have a lot to do with everything everywhere. I want to make it clear that I am not by any means an anti-USA person. 
Thanks a lot


----------



## Confused Linguist

panjabigator said:
			
		

> India, to my knowledge has never invaded anyone. But, they have been invaded by pretty much everything. Many people still hold a grudge.


 
India invaded Sikkim in the mid-70s.


----------



## Fernando

Luciaz said:
			
		

> I want to make it clear that I am not by any means an anti-USA person.



Pues lo disimulas perfectamente.


----------



## capsi

Confused Linguist said:
			
		

> India invaded Sikkim in the mid-70s.


 
that's a wrong information , India never invaded Sikkim, the then king of sikkim wishfully join the Indian democracy to avoid the chinese invasion.If you go through the history in details you will know that after China invaded Tibbet ,(which was a peaceful budhist country and had very deep relation with sikkim and in both places tibbetan budhism is followed ,and the 2nd highest order of monk Panchen Lama after the His Holiness Dalai Lama also lives in sikkim) sikkim became worried abt china since its a communist country and religion is banned.China also claimed sikkim as its part; like it claimed the arunachal pradesh,northern Kashmir and part of himachal pradesh as its territory and invaded india in 1969,and still holds parts of those indian states.After this war sikkim decided to join with india to maintain its religious/cultural identity under india's secular/multicultural umbrella not to become another Tibbet. 

if you really mean invasion by military then it was only in case of freeing the states of Goa/Daman/Deau from Protugese control. Because after independence along with British, French and Dutch which had very small colonies within india left but the Portugese did not,and it was a very small operation.


----------



## Confused Linguist

capsi said:
			
		

> that's a wrong information , India never invaded Sikkim, the then king of sikkim wishfully join the Indian democracy to avoid the chinese invasion.If you go through the history in details...


 
My father knew the King of Sikkim and and he told me the circumstances under which the King "willingly" turned his country over to India.


----------



## panjabigator

WHAT?  China claims Haryana?  WOW...I need to hear this one!


----------



## Tatzingo

Luciaz said:
			
		

> and then almost the whole country, land and services, were sold to American and European companies in a way that is not globalization but almost "invasion", the correct word would be in Spanish "apropiación"



Hi,

This would be also be "appropriation" in English. ;-)

Tatz.


----------



## capsi

panjabigator said:
			
		

> WHAT? China claims Haryana? WOW...I need to hear this one!


 
hi, panjabigator,sorry it will be, part of himachal pradesh which china claims as its own.and thanks for bringing that to my notice.thanks again.


----------



## panjabigator

Eh....Im still mad!


----------



## Johnny Blaze

No-one knows how to invade and pillage like the English. That's for sure.


----------



## doddle

Johnny Blaze said:
			
		

> No-one knows how to invade and pillage like the English. That's for sure.


Maybe the past tense of the verb "to know" would have been a better choice there. 

And then there's the Mongols, of course: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols.


----------



## Blackleaf

Johnny Blaze said:
			
		

> No-one knows how to invade and pillage like the English. That's for sure.


 
Except maybe the Germans and Americans and the Japanese and the Italians and Spanish and Portuguese.  And the Scots - Britain had less colonies BEFORE Scotland joined the Union than it did after it joined.


----------



## Blackleaf

> I beg to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * 1689: William of Hannover (with Dutch and German troops) defeats the English king.


 
There was no battle involved. The Protestant William of Orange (not William of Hannover) took the Throne off the unpopular Catholic James II without having to use force.  That's why it is known as "The Glorious Revolution." It took place in 1688.  James II was unpopular because he was a Catholic, whereas William of Orange was a popular Monarch because he was a Protestant.



> * 1746: Jacobite invasion of Scotland and England (mostly with Scottish troops, agreed).


 
The Jacobites were a group of people (mainly Scots but not just Scots) who opposed having a Hanoverian monarch (Protestant) on the British throne. These people supported having the Stuarts back on the throne - Charles I, Charles II and James II were Stuarts. A Jacobite force of mainly Scots - led by Bonnie Prince Charlie - invaded England in the 1740s with the intention of marching to London and allowing Bonnie Prince Charlie, James II's grandson and a Stuart, to seize the Throne, but they got only as far south as Derby. So you could say that this was a Scottish invasion of England.

Also, don't forget that England was invaded by the French in 1066.


----------



## maxiogee

Blackleaf said:
			
		

> Except maybe the Germans and Americans and the Japanese and the Italians and Spanish and Portuguese.  And the Scots - Britain had less colonies BEFORE Scotland joined the Union than it did after it joined.



Name any place Scotland invaded and pillaged - apart from south of the border.


----------



## mansio

Blackleaf

In France we usually say that England was invaded by the "Franco-Normands" the French Normans, not just by the French.


----------



## übermönch

mansio said:
			
		

> Blackleaf
> 
> In France we usually say that England was invaded by the _"Franco-Normands"_ the French Normans, not just by the French.


lol . Well, usually they are referred to just as _Normans_.


----------



## Fernando

Blackleaf said:
			
		

> There was no battle involved. The Protestant William of Orange (not William of Hannover) took the Throne off the unpopular Catholic James II without having to use force.  That's why it is known as "The Glorious Revolution." It took place in 1688.  James II was unpopular because he was a Catholic, whereas William of Orange was a popular Monarch because he was a Protestant.


 
I beg to disagree. It still qualify as an invasion. From the Wiki (article "Glorious Revolution""):



> William and Mary laid careful plans over a number of months for an *invasion*. Landing with *a large Dutch army *at Brixham, Devon on November 5, 1688,



James retired to Scotland and Ireland (with his scarce English supporters). El Boyne was the major battle.

I do not see why Mary needed a Dutch Army when opposition was null.



			
				Blackleaf said:
			
		

> The Jacobites were a group of people (mainly Scots but not just Scots) who opposed having a Hanoverian monarch (Protestant) on the British throne. These people supported having the Stuarts back on the throne - Charles I, Charles II and James II were Stuarts. A Jacobite force of mainly Scots - led by Bonnie Prince Charlie - invaded England in the 1740s with the intention of marching to London and allowing Bonnie Prince Charlie, James II's grandson and a Stuart, to seize the Throne, but they got only as far south as Derby. So you could say that this was a Scottish invasion of England.


 
Well, I have read about the 1746 campaign. You can call it both a civil war or a Scootish (with French support) invasion.



			
				Blackleaf said:
			
		

> Also, don't forget that England was invaded by the French in 1066.



Normans.  It was also invaded before by Cnut and others (vikings, Anglos, Jutos, Pictos, Scots, Romans and Belgians), but my comment was against the statement "No invasion after 1066".


----------



## Rodrigo_de_Burgos

As an American, ( the United States) we have only been invaded once by England, and well we smacked them down.
As an American( the Confederate States) we have been are are still occupied by the Union Army of the United States.
As a Californio( Spanish California) we have been invaded by the Americans (U.S.) and the Mexicans.
As a Castilian, we have never been invaded, but have defeated and held many nations and even created some.Viva Castiliano


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Rodrigo_de_Burgos said:


> As an American, ( the United States) we have only been invaded once by England, and well we smacked them down.



If you're speaking of the American war of independence, you're very wrong. Without French, Dutch and Spanish support the colonists could never have beaten a far superior British army and navy. 

In 1812, (last time the English invaded) they came and burned down the White House, hardly a "smacking".


----------



## invictaspirit

Pedro y La Torre said:


> If you're speaking of the American war of independence, you're very wrong. Without French, Dutch and Spanish support the colonists could never have beaten a far superior British army and navy.
> 
> In 1812, (last time the English invaded) they came and burned down the White House, hardly a "smacking".


 
1812: I thought the yanks tried to invade Canada because of their manifest destiny stuff and we stopped them from doing so? That's what the Canadians think anyway. We occupied Detroit and did the White House in revenge.  Then we got a bit cocky and did something else in Louisiana and got kicked out. But we were fighting and beating Napoleon in Europe at the same time, so fair play...it's not like we really cared.

But the way I see it, if America won 1812...how come Canada is still Canada?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

invictaspirit said:


> 1812: I thought the yanks tried to invade Canada because of their manifest destiny stuff and we stopped them from doing so? That's what the Canadians think anyway. We occupied Detroit and did the White House in revenge.  Then we got a bit cocky and did something else in Louisiana and got kicked out. But we were fighting and beating Napoleon in Europe at the same time, so fair play...it's not like we really cared.
> 
> But the way I see it, if America won 1812...how come Canada is still Canada?



That's just it, America didn't win 1812 and Canada remained English 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812


----------



## Rodrigo_de_Burgos

First, I never stated that without Spain, France and Holland that the US would have won the War of Independence. 

However, I must point out that the US won and England had to leave as for the War of 1812, yep the English did burn the White House, but they still lost the war, New Orleans folks.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

The history of Norway is basically a history of invasions 

If we go back to the Norse times, there is of course the various invasions of England, and the north coast of France by the Vikings.

In the 14th century, we entered a union with Denmark, which lasted until 1814. During the national romanticism, this period was known as the 400 year night. 
Denmark-Norway entered Napoleon's side in the Napoleonic wars, which of course was a mistake. After the defeat, Sweden, who had entered the right side (they're not always as stupid as it's said  ), got Norway as swag. The Norwegians used the opportunity to declare independance and write a constitution, but the Swedes forced their king on us.

From a linguistic point of view, this period is interesting, as the Danish officials who were stationed throughout the country brought the Danish written language with them - Danish became the Norwegian written language. This explains why Danish and Norwegian (bokmål) are so similar. Because of the geographical closeness to Sweden, the spoken language (in the eastern parts) is very similar to Western Swedish.

In 1905, the patriotic feelings got to the point where Norwegians felt they needed an independant nation, and on June 7th, the Storting declared its independance from the Swedish king. It all went rather peaceful, and a Danish prince was headhunted for the new throne.

Our relationship with the Swedes is very good (though I've heard some regret letting us go, envious of our oil fortune. Edit: in jest of course. Or was it?  ), and marked with a lot of friendly jokes (like the 'stupid' part above; hope that was clear).

Of course, there's also the German invasion of Norway on April 9th, 1940. After the war, sentiments against the Germans were, well, not as good as they are today, something kids born with a German soldier as father experienced during their childhood. 
Today there are no grudges though, of course.


----------



## maxiogee

Rodrigo_de_Burgos said:


> As an American( the Confederate States) we have been are are still occupied by the Union Army of the United States.
> As a Californio( Spanish California) we have been invaded by the Americans (U.S.) and the Mexicans.



???

From a wikipedia page....."During the American Civil War (1861-1865), about 70% of the people in California believed that the South was right, and only 30% were for the North. But California joined the war effort on the side of the North (the Union) and sent many troops east to fight the Confederacy."


----------



## Rodrigo_de_Burgos

Maxiogee,
My family pre-dates the American control of California.You have to remember, California has been Spanish,Mexican , its own nation and American.


----------



## maxiogee

Rodrigo_de_Burgos said:


> Maxiogee,
> My family pre-dates the American control of California.You have to remember, California has been Spanish,Mexican , its own nation and American.



Your family history doesn't make you an "American (the Confederate States)".


----------



## invictaspirit

Rodrigo_de_Burgos said:


> First, I never stated that without Spain, France and Holland that the US would have won the War of Independence.
> 
> However, I must point out that the US won and England had to leave as for the War of 1812, yep the English did burn the White House, but they still lost the war, New Orleans folks.


 
So Canada *is* part of the US?  Coulda *sworn* you got beaten out of it when you tried to invade it in 1812...  This is what comes of fighting two wars at the same time.  Memory gets hazy.


----------



## Surly Canuck

What a fantastic discussion... so great it prompted me to register.

Canada, as a nation (est 1867) has never been successfully invaded, nor have we ever invaded another nation (militarily at least; there's thousands of British war brides who might argue otherwise).

However, I think the definition of invasion might very well need to be changed.  Certainly there is military invasion, but one could also speak intelligently about cultural invasions, and 'invasion' by immigrants.

As to how long it takes two nations to forgive each other, the invader and invadee as it were, I think that's a function of socio-economic and political issues.  The more open the relations between the two countries following the end of the conflict, the more likely relations will be normalized.

However understand that there is a significant difference between cultural and political forgiveness.  One people may forgive another, yet their governments harbour grudges for political aims.  Alternatively, relations can be normalized in a political arena, yet there is a great deal of resentment and dislike at street level.

All in all, a fascinating discussion.


----------



## don maico

Rodrigo_de_Burgos said:


> First, I never stated that without Spain, France and Holland that the US would have won the War of Independence.
> 
> However, I must point out that the US won and England had to leave as for the War of 1812, yep the English did burn the White House, but they still lost the war, New Orleans folks.


Incorrect! The war was inconclusive as the Americans wanted to invade Canada and failed.


----------



## CrazyArcher

I live in Israel right now, so, ehm, any comments are needless...


----------



## SpiceMan

don maico said:


> Incorrect! The war was inconclusive as the Americans wanted to invade Canada and failed.


Haha, funny .

Hmmm... this is going to be a long post full of random thoughts.

* First section: *answer to the topic in question.

a) being invaded....

I'm from Argentina, so like the whole New World, it's a piece of land invaded by europeans. There probably wouldn't be something called Argentina right now weren't for that.
So Argentina was invaded -initially- by Spanish and to a minor extent Portuguese (until the Portuguese were forced to exile in colony times due to the increasing Spain Kingdom-Portugal Kingdom rivalry). 

We were also invaded by the British in a time (1806) that, although not independent, the region was pretty much autonomous due to the Napoleonic Wars in Europe to which the Spanish Crown's attention was focused. 

The British invasion failed, but it was without doubt pretty darn close to be successful. At any rate, it surely boosted independence sentiment since the invasion was repelled by local _criollos_, and not by the Spanish Crown representatives whom meekly handed Buenos Aires out without any real resistance.
Next invasion was from Brazil in 1820s. Although the battlefield of the Argentina-Brazil war was rather nowadays Uruguay and Southern Brazil, there had been decisive battles and incursions from the brazilian forces into present Argentina territory. So let's call these incursions rather than invasions .

[nationalist mode]The Falkland Islands were invaded by British forces in 1833[/nationalist mode]

The last invasion, actually more like a trespassing, was from Paraguay heading its way into Uruguay, at the onset of what was to become the Triple Alliance War between Paraguay vs. Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay.

[nationalist mode]Technically speaking the last invasion has taken place at the Falkland Islands in 1982 by the British[/nationalist mode]

Personally speaking, I couldn't care less about the Malvinas/Falkland Islands. I might be biased, but I do think that the argentinean claim has a more solid basis than the british one. But in the end I don't give a *bleep*. Being realistic, those rocks are as British as the Isle of Man.

===============================

This was going to be a tedious and long monologue about invasions to and from Argentina -with an odd parallelism between ancient greece and post-independence Argentina-, nowadays sentiment of the Argentine people after the Falkland wars, an experience I had talking with a Paraguayan about the Triple Alliance war, a section with my personal view on the sinojapanese problem (being an "outsider" living in Japan, I thought of sharing my experiences while talking to Japanese people about the subject), and other stuff I though of while reading all the insight offered in this discussion.

That is, I wanted to offer some REAL content (and 99.9999% nonsense ). 

However I got tired in the middle. I might post the rest afterwards.


----------



## Sepia

I find it rather scary how so many of go off on this "My country was invaded by xx so-and-somany decades or centuries ago" or about war-crimes so old that the even the persons that knew the victims and the criminals themselves are long gone from the material world - and you still have a personal relationship to these events.

It is very important that we learn from the crimes committed by individuals that were chosen as leaders or by nations as a whole - but that is a different story. That is not a nationalistic thing. That is something we all should learn from to avoid that such things happen again.

Let my give an example of the lack of logic thinking and honesty in this discussion: As a German I might say - yes, we invaded Denmark or parts of Denmark a few times. Not only WWII but also in 1864 and 1848. However, what the wars in the 19th century are concerned, Germany was forced to take some kind of action against Denmark who had used its owerwhelmingly powerful navy to put an embargo of Germany into power.

Very logical, right? Or not? First it was Prussia, not the German "Reich" and not Federal Republic of Germany, secondly it was not "we" because I was not there. 

And third which might be of importance too: I actually belong to an ethnic minority in Northern Germany - The Danes! Might that entitle me to say - hey "WE" did not invade Denmark, WE are still occupied by Germany!!? Well, the funny thing is, that they decided about this in 1920 by means of a referendum. The result was, that only about half of the territories that Denmark lost to "Germany" in the 19th century wars reached a pro-Danish majority. Does that give me the right as a German to say "WE" had in fact been occupied by the Danes for several centuries, until we got our land back during the wars in the 19th century?

Judging by the way a good deal of the posters in this thread argue the answer should be YES to all the above questions, but it would not make much sense, would it?

Just as it does not make much sense when somebody from France says - France was invaded by the Normans or the Romans or whatever - because the people who lived there at that time did not call that country France, did not speak neither Latin nor French or anything like it, and the people who call themselves French and their country France today usually don't look much like the people that were massacred by the millions by mercenaries paid by the Roman state.

And we could go on like this around the world ...



What is important to me is, who is invading or occupying 

which country NOW!!


----------



## Fedorov92

As a citizen of the United States of America, I think I can safely say yes, we have invaded, at last count, I don't know how many countries!!! Not my fault  people. Don't kill the messenger...


----------



## Hotu Matua

If we use a broader definition of the question, meaning
"Have people living in the territory where you live ever invaded other territory, or been invaded by people living in other territory?"
Then the universal answer would be "YES".
All populated territories on earth, at some point in history, have either invaded or been invaded. All nations or ethnic groups have known what blood shedding is. This fact might make us think about human nature in a different way.


----------



## JamesM

Rodrigo_de_Burgos said:


> As a Castilian, we have never been invaded, but have defeated and held many nations and even created some.Viva Castiliano


 
Is this true?  I'm pretty sure portions of Castile were under Moorish control early in its history.


----------



## JamesM

Rodrigo_de_Burgos said:


> Maxiogee,
> My family pre-dates the American control of California.You have to remember, California has been Spanish,Mexican , its own nation and American.


 
If we must remember this, we must also remember that the Spanish invasion of the area they called California came at a great cost to the indigenous tribes here, mostly through the spread of disease. Your family may pre-date the American control of California but that places them solidly in the "invader" camp, nevertheless.



			
				Hotu Matua said:
			
		

> All populated territories on earth, at some point in history, have either invaded or been invaded. All nations or ethnic groups have known what blood shedding is. This fact might make us think about human nature in a different way.


 
I think this is an excellent point.


----------



## alexacohen

JamesM said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hotu Matua*
> All populated territories on earth, at some point in history, have either invaded or been invaded. All nations or ethnic groups have known what blood shedding is. This fact might make us think about human nature in a different way.
> 
> I think this is an excellent point.


 
Yes, it is, James. Those who are free of sin may throw stones.


----------



## Fernando

Rodrigo_de_Burgos said:


> As a Castilian, we have never been invaded, but have defeated and held many nations and even created some.Viva Castiliano



Castille was invaded many times during its existence. Just to name a few: Moors, Leoneses, Navarros and aragoneses.

French and English intervened in Castillian civil wars.

Eventually, Castille united with Leon and, together, contributed to the "creation" of Spain.


----------



## Athaulf

Fernando said:


> Castille was invaded many times during its existence. Just to name a few: Moors, Leoneses, Navarros and aragoneses.
> 
> French and English intervened in Castillian civil wars.
> 
> Eventually, Castille united with Leon and, together, contributed to the "creation" of Spain.



Spain was also invaded and occupied for several years by Napoleon's troops 200 years ago. I'm surprised that someone claiming Castillan heritage, like Rodrigo above, could forget about an event that has such a significant and dramatic place in Spanish history.


----------



## alexacohen

Athaulf said:


> Spain was also invaded and occupied for several years by Napoleon's troops 200 years ago. I'm surprised that someone claiming Castillan heritage, like Rodrigo above, could forget about an event that has such a significant and dramatic place in Spanish history.


 
Fernando hasn't forgotten, Athaulf.
He was talking about Castile, not Spain.
As for Rodrigo... well, maybe he needs to be redirected to an History forum.


----------



## Athaulf

alexacohen said:


> Fernando hasn't forgotten, Athaulf.
> He was talking about Castile, not Spain.
> As for Rodrigo... well, maybe he needs to be redirected to an History forum.



I was referring to Rodrigo's post above (which was written a while ago, but I hadn't noticed it earlier). My apologies if I accidentally made it sound like it was directed at someone else.

Generally, I don't think there exists any European country that hasn't been invaded at least a few times in the last thousand years or so.


----------



## alexacohen

I can't think of any, either. Not only in Europe, but in all the wide world.
But I'm not acquainted with the History of Iceland, for instance. So maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Athaulf

alexacohen said:


> I can't think of any, either. Not only in Europe, but in all the wide world.
> But I'm not acquainted with the History of Iceland, for instance. So maybe I'm wrong.



Sorry to disappoint you , but Iceland was invaded and occupied by the British forces in 1940.


----------



## ernest_

Spain was basically a French colony almost throughout the 19th century. It's amazing that we even still speak Spanish, when you think about it, considering the fact that the French have genocided every culture they have been in contact with.


----------



## Fernando

ernest_ said:


> Spain was basically a French colony almost throughout the 19th century. It's amazing that we even still speak Spanish, when you think about it, considering the fact that the French have genocided every culture they have been in contact with.



Spain was invaded twice by France in the 19th century:

1) Guerra de la Independencia (1808-12). 
2) Intervención de los 100.000 hijos de San Luis (with other powers): 1823.

The cultural influence was huge, but "French colony" is not exactly what my History books say. 

The comment about "French" is "a bit" sweeping to me.


----------



## Qcumber

ernest_ said:


> Spain was basically a French colony almost throughout the 19th century. It's amazing that we even still speak Spanish, when you think about it, considering the fact that the French have genocided every culture they have been in contact with.


Could you please give at least one example?


----------



## panjabigator

Qcumber said:


> Could you please give at least one example?



How about Haiti?  An officially French speaking country (with Haitian Creole too of course).


----------



## Qcumber

panjabigator said:


> How about Haiti? An officially French speaking country (with Haitian Creole too of course).


You are not serious. The Spaniards massacred its native Amerindian population. The ancestors of the blacks of the Republic of Haiti were African slaves sold by Arab and African slave drivers to Spanish and French slave drivers. This is well-known.


----------



## panjabigator

Qcumber said:


> You are not serious. The Spaniards massacred its native Amerindian population. The ancestors of the blacks of the Republic of Haiti were African slaves sold by Arab and African slave drivers to Spanish and French slave drivers. This is well-known.



I guess I didn't read the question too closely then.  I was just thinking of the exportation of the French language over the population; that was the extent of it.


----------



## Paraguayan

Paraguayan territory has been invaded twice in its entire history (as an independet country). 

1870 (Guerra de la Triple Alianza) Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay against Paraguay

Paraguay lost the war, and part of its territory (_now Misiones_ y _Formosa belong to Argentina _and _Part of Mato Grosso do Sul that now belongs to Brazil _but _Uruguay got nothing_)

1935 (Guerra del Chacho) Bolivia against Paraguay

Paraguay won the war, even though it lost part of north chaco territory (_now it belongs to Bolivia_)


----------



## ernest_

Qcumber said:


> Could you please give at least one example?



With great pleasure 

Take for instance Alsatian, Breton, Corsican, Franco-Provençal, Catalan and Basque, to name a few of the languages once spoken in France, which now are either already extinct or on the way to oblivion after centuries of marginalisation and imposition of the French language. Their record of cultural genocide in Algeria and Madagascar as well as in other overseas territories is also well documented.

Cultural homogenisation and linguicide have been the official policy in France since the very creation of the French state. Even today France is the only European country who has not signed the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, as it poses a threat to their national integrity, they say.

It is no surprise either that that kind of cultural genocide was introduced into Spain by a French, Philip V from the Bourbon dynasty, whose descendants are still (shamefully) on the throne.


----------



## Drechuin

ernest_ said:


> Take for instance Alsatian, Breton, Corsican, Franco-Provençal, Catalan and Basque, to name a few of the languages once spoken in France, which now are either already extinct or on the way to oblivion after centuries of marginalisation and imposition of the French language.



Your definition of genocide is awfully broad.
France followed a policy of language shift, it's a bit different than killing all those belonging to the wrong culture.



ernest_ said:


> Even today France is the only European country who has not signed the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, as it poses a threat to their national integrity, they say.



Too bad, you're Spanish and yet unaware that your neighbour, Portugal, is a European country. You can check who did what here.


----------



## ireney

*Moderator's note: I would like to remind you all the original post. *




coconutpalm said:


> China has a recorded history of about 6,000 years. In its long long history, it had invaded other countries or had many smaller countries as its tributary states. On the other hand, since 1840, China became a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country and China was to a large extent invaded. In the World War II, it was invaded by Japan.
> Nowadays, the political relationship between China and Japan is very bad. What is worse, many people in both countries loathe the other country.
> 
> Here arise my questions (a lot ):
> 
> Many countries have a history as invador or occupied territory (or both) of their neighbours.
> 
> How has this coloured their subsequent relations?
> 
> Do you think that they have successfully put their history behind them and looked forward?
> 
> What actions are necessary, on a national and individual basis, for countries to put their past behind them and form a strong bond with each other?
> 
> What are examples of countries which have done this successfully?
> 
> How many years, or generations, does it take for countries to overcome their history?
> 
> Do they need outside assistance to achieve this? What sort of assistance?
> 
> To which point can this country be considered having "overcome this history", as an invador or an invadee?
> 
> You can choose one specific question to answer, but please keep in mind that it's not an invitation to air old grievance.
> 
> At last, I want to say "thank you" to Chaska, Emma and daoxunchang for providing me with excellent suggestions!
> 
> 
> Edit: I edited my post according to CrazyIvan's suggestion.Thank you! And I apologize if my previous words, clearly missending my intention as planned, offend anyone.


----------



## almostfreebird

coconutpalm said:


> China has a recorded history of about 6,000 years. In its long long history, it had invaded other countries or had many smaller countries as its tributary states. On the other hand, since 1840, China became a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country and China was to a large extent invaded. In the World War II, it was invaded by Japan.
> Nowadays, the political relationship between China and Japan is very bad. What is worse, many people in both countries loathe the other country.
> 
> Here arise my questions (a lot ):
> 
> Many countries have a history as invador or occupied territory (or both) of their neighbours.
> 
> How has this coloured their subsequent relations?
> 
> Do you think that they have successfully put their history behind them and looked forward?
> 
> What actions are necessary, on a national and individual basis, for countries to put their past behind them and form a strong bond with each other?
> 
> What are examples of countries which have done this successfully?
> 
> How many years, or generations, does it take for countries to overcome their history?
> 
> Do they need outside assistance to achieve this? What sort of assistance?
> 
> To which point can this country be considered having "overcome this history", as an invador or an invadee?
> 
> You can choose one specific question to answer, but please keep in mind that it's not an invitation to air old grievance.
> 
> At last, I want to say "thank you" to Chaska, Emma and daoxunchang for providing me with excellent suggestions!
> 
> 
> Edit: I edited my post according to CrazyIvan's suggestion.Thank you! And I apologize if my previous words, clearly missending my intention as planned, offend anyone.





Kind of invasion by kind of drunken driver(hero in China) in this era, not hundreds or thousands years ago.

http://www.japanprobe.com/2010/11/0...chinese-trawler-ramming-japanese-patrol-boat/


----------



## Fericire

Brazil was invaded by Portugal in July 22 of 1500 (well, that's what most History books say).
Then, while Brazil was a colony of Portugal, the French (since the colonization until the XIX century) and the Dutch (that as the French they tried to invade mainly in the 16th century) tried to invade it; but Portugal kicked their asses . Even so, there are still French speaking tiny communities in Brazil and Dutch culture in northeast Brazil.

So, in chronological order:

Portugal (15th century until the Independence, which was in the 19th century)
French (Since the discovery of Brazil until the 19th century they kept trying to invade, but failed)
Dutch (History books, usually, just mention the Dutch 16th century invasions)
From neighbour countries, Brazil got invaded once by Paraguay; but then Argentine and Uruguay made the _Triple Alianza_ — an alliance between these countries — with Brazil and the alliance won the war started by Francisco Solano López.


----------



## Fericire

coconutpalm said:


> China has a recorded history of about 6,000 years. In its long long history, it had invaded other countries or had many smaller countries as its tributary states. On the other hand, since 1840, China became a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country and China was to a large extent invaded. In the World War II, it was invaded by Japan.
> Nowadays, the political relationship between China and Japan is very bad. What is worse, many people in both countries loathe the other country.



And in some centuries ago, Portugal invaded Macau.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Fericire said:


> And in some centuries ago, Portugal invaded Macau.



Then Portugal got unceremoniously turfed out of all of them and became as powerful as Malta.


----------



## Sepia

The really tragic thing about this thread is that a number of people - supposedly nationals of some very big countries - claim that their country never invaded any currently existing state. However their countries only got that big by invading and assimilating neighbouring states that never were liberated again.


----------



## atento

Germans and Turks invaded Greece. At least it was not the same period. My country has suffered a lot!


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

atento said:


> Germans and Turks invaded Greece. At least it was not the same period. My country has suffered a lot!



To even it out, your country did quite a lot of invading back in the day though!


----------



## atento

Name the countries that were under the occupation of Greek.


----------



## JamesM

atento said:


> Name the countries that were under the occupation of Greek.



As others have said, atento, this is only a matter of how far back we're willing to go to hold a grudge.    Persia and India have both been invaded by ancient Greece, to name a few.


----------



## atento

Greeks always were fighting against invaders such as Italians, Turkish, German people. Churchil had sai: Today we say that _Greeks_ fight like _heroes_, from now on we will say that _heroes_ fight like _Greeks_. The only exception is what Alexander did in India etc. I was sure that someone would say that and it makes me happy that you prove that Alexander was Greek. 
Peace and kisses to everyone and let s hope that once the wars will stop (even the economical wars).


----------



## Fernando

Churchill aside (who did not help very much to Greece, to say the least), Greece has invaded Turkey (eventually lost the war) and Bulgaria after its independency. It invaded Albania (as an answer to Italian invasion) in WWII.

Alexander did certainly consider himself a Greek. Before and after him, Greeks invaded Persia (Spartans, Anabasis) and almost every place in the Mediterranean basin (in the West mostly by trade, rather than war).


----------



## Frank78

I think the list is shorter when mentioning European countries which Germany or German states have never invaded. 

Sweden
Spain 
Portugal
Ireland
Iceland
Great Britain (apart from the Channel Islands)

And that was about it.

Countries which never invaded Germany:

Iceland
Finland
Ireland
Portugal
Italy/Italian states - I'm not sure if one of them ever conquered a piece of Austria at some point, e.g. Venice
Greece
none of the Balkan states
Czech Republic and Slovakia - well they haven't been existing very long


----------



## atento

Fernando said:


> Churchill aside (who did not help very much to Greece, to say the least), Greece has invaded Turkey (eventually lost the war) and Bulgaria after its independency. It invaded Albania (as an answer to Italian invasion) in WWII.
> 
> Alexander did certainly consider himself a Greek. Before and after him, Greeks invaded Persia (Spartans, Anabasis) and almost every place in the Mediterranean basin (in the West mostly by trade, rather than war).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Persian_Wars


----------



## atento

You should also read abou the "War of the Stray Dog".


----------



## Fernando

Your two posts confirm Greece has invaded Persian Empire and Bulgaria (see my post 291). So?


----------



## Fernando

You are too modest.



Frank78 said:


> I think the list is shorter when mentioning European countries which Germany or German states have never invaded.
> 
> Sweden
> Spain *(unless you count German tribes)*
> Portugal *(unless you count German tribes)*
> Ireland
> Iceland
> Great Britain (apart from the Channel Islands) *(unless you count German tribes)*


----------



## Hakro

Frank78 said:


> I think the list is shorter when mentioning European countries which Germany or German states have never invaded.
> 
> Sweden
> *Finland* During WW1 and WW2 there were German troops in Finland but it never was an invasion.
> Spain
> Portugal
> Ireland
> Iceland
> Great Britain (apart from the Channel Islands)
> 
> Countries which never invaded Germany:
> 
> Iceland
> (*Finland* - Finnish soldiers had an important role when Sweden was invading Germany.)
> Ireland
> Portugal
> etc.


----------



## Frank78

Fernando: We are talking about states, at least territorial ones. I don't think that Germanic or Indian tribes can be counted as those.

Hakro: The Finnish soldiers were under Swedish command. It's hard to invade a country if you don't have one yourself. 

By the way Gustavus Adolphus is a very popular "invader" (at least for Protestants). Some kilometres away from my home town there's a memorial site at Lützen dedicated to him. And we even have a beer with his portrait.


----------



## TitTornade

Weird discussion 

I guess my country tried to invade any country in the world... and that most of the european countries tried to invade it...


----------



## atento

Fernando said:


> Your two posts confirm Greece has invaded Persian Empire and Bulgaria (see my post 291). So?



Persians invaded Greece they wanted to expend their country. About Bulgarian i guess you read the reason of the war.


----------



## Fernando

atento said:


> Persians invaded Greece they wanted to expend their country. About Bulgarian i guess you read the reason of the war.



Greece invaded Persia.
Greece invaded Bulgaria.

That is the only thing we are discussing in this thread. If Alexander burned Persepolis because Athens had been buried 150 years ago or who should dominate Trace is another subject.


----------



## Fernando

Frank78 said:


> Fernando: We are talking about states, at least territorial ones. I don't think that Germanic or Indian tribes can be counted as those.



Agreed. But the lists should be redone. As a matter of fact, NOBODY should have invaded Germany before 1870 (neither Swedes nor Finnish). Ditto for UK before 18th century (unification with Scotland) and so on.  

I know you said 'German states' but then you should remove Spain from the invaders: Spanish troops have entered into current German soil in 16th and 17th century. I think they never entered in current Prussia soil. They stayed most of the times in West and South Germany.


----------



## Frank78

Fernando said:


> I know you said 'German states' but then you should remove Spain from the invaders: Spanish troops have entered into current German soil in 16th and 17th century. I think they never entered in current Prussia soil. They stayed most of the times in West and South Germany.



The definition of what is "Germany" have changed. Certainly and at all times Southern and Western states belonged to it, e.g. Bavaria, Palatinate, etc. Austria until the 1860s. I don't see any problem. Prussia was one of several German states. Those states united more or less freely, they weren't annexed by Prussia. Otherwise the name "Kingdom of Prussia" would have prevailed for entire Germany.


----------



## Fernando

Agreed. I only mentioned 'Prussia' as one of the several German states that has maintained somehow the continuity from Middle Ages. My point is that Spanish troops did not invade, e.g., Bavaria (most times they were allies). They did invade Palatinate or Saxony which did not match with a current Land. Correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Frank78

Fernando said:


> Agreed. I only mentioned 'Prussia' as one of the several German states that has maintained somehow the continuity from Middle Ages. My point is that Spanish troops did not invade, e.g., Bavaria (most times they were allies). They did invade Palatinate or Saxony which did not match with a current Land. Correct me if I am wrong.



Both still exist:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renania-Palatinado
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sajonia

Buhttp://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renania-Palatinadot Prussia does not exist anymore because the Allied believed that it was the "stronghold of militarism"


----------



## Fernando

You are right. I tend to identify Brandenburg=Prussia.

Anyhow, the continuity between 17th century Palatinate and Rheinland-Pfalz is problematic.

About Saxony I am always confused on which German state (Sachsen, Niedersachsen or Sachsen-Anhalt is the 'right' heir.

Anyway, I am done. I admit that Spain invaded Germany.


----------



## Agró

Spain (or was it Castille?) invaded most of Navarre in 1512.

Navarre invaded Albania and Greece in the 14th C. To what end? No idea.


----------



## Frank78

Fernando said:


> About Saxony I am always confused on which German state (Sachsen, Niedersachsen or Sachsen-Anhalt is the 'right' heir.



Hehe. I try to enlighten you.

Niedersachen=Lower Saxony: the place where the ancient Saxon tribe was from; later the Electorate of Hanover and some other minor states
Sachsen-Anhalt: The north belonged to Brandenburg-Prussia (Altmark) and the south to Saxony; later the whole state was Prussian
Sachsen=Saxony: first Electorate then kingdom when August the strong converted to catholizism to become Polish (and Saxon) King; lost constantly some of their territory over the time


----------



## Fernando

Thank you. If there is a poll in the future to change their names to, say, Niederelbe, Anhalt and Dresdenland, let me know.


----------



## atento

Fernando said:


> Greece invaded Persia.
> Greece invaded Bulgaria.
> 
> That is the only thing we are discussing in this thread. If Alexander burned Persepolis because Athens had been buried 150 years ago or who should dominate Trace is another subject.



All started when i said that my country has suffered a lot and some of you tried to prove that my country has done the same to others countries. But when Italians wanted to get my country yes we fight against them. When Bulgarians killed the Greek innocent that was a reason to fight against the enemy. I hate wars i love world peace but you can not blame us. Wouldn t you fight in order to protect your country?


----------



## Vanda

> Wouldn 't you fight in order to protect your country?


NO, never! I am a pacifist!  War kill innocent lives, so I am against any country invading any other country and killing people, but I'd never be blamed to kill other lives of any nationalty. I have only one nationality: human being.


----------



## ireney

OK let's see:
Keeping the reasons and justifications aside, right or wrong here's when Greeks either started a war or continued a war or elsehow ended up in territory that was not Greek. Do remember that in many of these invasions I believe that we, the Greeks, were more than just justified in doing so. Hell, in some cases, it hardly counts as an invasion. That doesn't come into it (the list I mean). I am recounting all the times I can think of that Greeks invaded another territory. Since we have a long history this is a rather long list.

Ancient times

If we accept there's any truth behind Iliad and the whole Trojan war myth then we invaded that city
Any time they created a colony in a non-Greek area (say Massalia/Marseilles). Granted, ancient Greeks did not go for total domination, they just went after the premium port sites. While there's (or I haven't read any) no evidence that they fought for them and for all I know many, if not all, sites may have been unoccupied, I count that as an invasion if we stretch the meaning of the word a bit lot. 
Spartans invaded the Persian empire during the reign (or co-reign if you wish) of Agesilaus the second.
Alexander the Great and pretty much all other Greeks (minus the Spartans) invaded the Persian empire and pretty much everything up to India (he wanted to go further too and it wasn't for a spot of tea either).
I don't recall all the wars of the Macedon kings with their neighbors but I'm willing to bet there was some invasion going on there too. Ditto for all other Greeks with foreign neighbors.
The events described in Xenophon's Anabasis* do not* in any possible way constitute an invasion. These guys were mercenaries.
_Then the Romans invaded us and so we can skip ahead to..._

Byzantium 

Here things get a bit tricky since the Byzantine empire was known throughout its existence as Easter Roman Empire. It started out as pretty much Roman and ended up as pretty much Greek though always multicultural (till almost the end when it had shrunk down to more or less what's today Greece - before shrinking even further). 

I don't know if anyone's interested in listing those wars (and, boy, were they plentiful)  and if, say Justinian's wars of expansion should be considered Greek invasions or not but I can list them if you wish.

_The Ottoman Empire sweeps through pretty much half of Europe and for quite a few centuries there's no independent Greek state. Skipping ahead once more we arrive to...

Modern times

Greco-Turkish was of 1897. I know what we invaded (and had our behinds handed to us by the way) was Thessaly but still; it was not part of the Greek state, it was part of the Ottoman Empire.
Balkan war I. Invasion of the Ottoman Empire by pretty much all the independent Balkan states.
Balkan war ii. Invasion of Bulgaria (by pretty much all the independent Balkan states).
Greco-Turkish war of 1919-1922.
WWII invasion of Albania.
_I think I listed all of them.


----------



## Fernando

ireney said:


> [*]Any time they created a colony in a non-Greek area (say Massalia/Marseilles). Granted, ancient Greeks did not go for total domination, they just went after the premium port sites. While there's (or I haven't read any) no evidence that they fought for them and for all I know many, if not all, sites may have been unoccupied, I count that as an invasion if we stretch the meaning of the word a bit lot.



Agreed. The Greeks fought against Etrurians and Phoenicians/Carthago, who were not invaded but invasors. Local peoples would ally one or another. Anyhow, I think Magna Graecia was more like an invasion.

Depending on whether you consider Sicilians as Greeks or not, the Sicilian expedition of Alcibiades is an invasion or a civil war.



ireney said:


> much all other Greeks (minus the Spartans)


 



ireney said:


> I don't know if anyone's interested in listing those wars (and, boy, were they plentiful)  and if, say Justinian's wars of expansion should be considered Greek invasions or not but I can list them if you wish.



I would not. At least in Justinian times, he ruled the 'Roman Empire'.


----------



## ireney

Fernado, well, the Sicilian expedition of the Athenians (Alcibiades was recalled if you remember and Nicias took over) was really a civil war since they were going after the Greek colonies of the opposite side and not the indigenous population. How the colonies came to be is another point altogether though 

I would agree with you on Justinian's wars. See, that's why I skipped the Byzantine times altogether. While very few would argue that, at that point, the empire was Roman, as we go down the centuries, that multicultural empire becomes more and more "Hellenized". At which point can we call it Greek? Tricky one and, hey, if anyone is interested here's the wikipedia page that lists all the wars (offensive, defensive and somewhere in the middle ones).


----------



## Fernando

ireney said:


> (Alcibiades was recalled if you remember and Nicias took over)



Of course, agreed. Anyhow, I like to put the blame on Alcibiades.


----------



## JCA-

Well. Speaking of Latin American countries, a Latin American country has never invaded another really, although there have been disputes over territory, a legacy of old divisions of the former Spanish colonies. In this sense, there are a lot of examples...
Now while there has not been Latin American invasions as such,  at least from they are independent countries, there are some, who speak of the migration of Latin Americans  to the USA, and, in general, of people born in developing countries to industrialized countries, as a kind of "invasion" and of that is the way how our countries get even for the domain of those others.
If migrations can be considered as a kind of invasion, now that's a topic!
In that vein, there is another kind of invasions, in a figurative sense, of which I would like to talk about: commercial invasions. For example, I would speak of the current invasion of light industrial products "made in china", perhaps across the entire planet. 
And those are really subjects for a cultural discussion!

Please correct my English (but do it with kindness!)


----------



## Frank78

JCA- said:


> Well. Speaking of Latin American countries, a Latin American country has never invaded another really, although there have been disputes over territory, a legacy of old divisions of the former Spanish colonies.



What about the Saltpeter War and the invasion of the Falklands? In the former Bolivia lost a considerable amount of their territory including access to the Pacific.


----------



## JCA-

Let's see. Well I think that these you mentioned, although they were wars, they were not invasions of one country to another as such. These are these territorial disputes I see as a legacy of the old colonial divisions of the Spanish crown. No point of comparison with the invasions of great empires they were given in the old world, including the invasions of monarchical powers that colonized the Americas after the arrival of Columbus. 

Instead you could have mentioned how pre-Hispanic peoples as the Incas, Mayas and Aztecs invaded other peoples weaker many times (see the Inca empire, the Maya or Azteca).

However I think Latin Americans as such we have never had an imperialist mentality, i.e. the mestizos who today inhabit these lands we think very differently. And what can we say about the native peoples of America who persist?  they have been invaded always since the fifteenth century up to the present


----------



## almostfreebird

Neil Young sang about it.

Zuma


----------



## boozer

Throughout its history, my country has invaded and been invaded by all its neighbours  (except for the country that calls itself "the Republic of Macedonia", which never needed to be invaded as it never existed until some 20 years ago)


----------



## almostfreebird

coconutpalm said:


> China has a recorded history of about 6,000 years. In its long long history, it had invaded other countries or had many smaller countries as its tributary states. On the other hand, since 1840, China became a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country and China was to a large extent invaded. In the World War II, it was invaded by Japan.
> Nowadays, the political relationship between China and Japan is very bad. What is worse, many people in both countries loathe the other country.
> 
> Here arise my questions (a lot ):
> 
> Many countries have a history as invador or occupied territory (or both) of their neighbours.
> 
> How has this coloured their subsequent relations?
> 
> Do you think that they have successfully put their history behind them and looked forward?
> 
> What actions are necessary, on a national and individual basis, for countries to put their past behind them and form a strong bond with each other?
> 
> What are examples of countries which have done this successfully?
> 
> How many years, or generations, does it take for countries to overcome their history?
> 
> Do they need outside assistance to achieve this? What sort of assistance?
> 
> To which point can this country be considered having "overcome this history", as an invador or an invadee?
> 
> You can choose one specific question to answer, but please keep in mind that it's not an invitation to air old grievance.
> 
> At last, I want to say "thank you" to Chaska, Emma and daoxunchang for providing me with excellent suggestions!
> 
> 
> Edit: I edited my post according to CrazyIvan's suggestion.Thank you! And I apologize if my previous words, clearly missending my intention as planned, offend anyone.








almostfreebird said:


> Kind of invasion by kind of drunken driver(hero in China) in this era, not hundreds or thousands years ago.
> 
> http://www.japanprobe.com/2010/11/0...chinese-trawler-ramming-japanese-patrol-boat/








Anti-Japan protests in China turn violent


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

The Chinese protests are whipped up by the government for their own ends (diverting attention away from a slowing economy). As one protester said, ''they teach us to hate Japan at school and then bus us to protests; who can be in any shock when these protests turn violent?''


----------



## WME

Pedro y La Torre said:


> The Chinese protests are whipped up by the government for their own ends (diverting attention away from a slowing economy). As one protester said, ''they teach us to hate Japan at school and then bus us to protests; who can be in any shock when these protests turn violent?''



I second that. It is quite difficult here to grasp how the Chinese and Japanese feel about each other because both nations have been manipulated by their governments for years. Don't really want to go into details here, but i really mean BOTH.
As I like to say, The Chinese and Japanese are like the French and the British, they have so much in common that they only focus on their differences.


----------



## almostfreebird

WME said:


> I second that. It is quite difficult here to grasp how the Chinese and Japanese feel about each other because both nations have been manipulated by their governments for years. Don't really want to go into details here, but i really mean BOTH.
> As I like to say, The Chinese and Japanese are like the French and the British, they have so much in common that they only focus on their differences.




But British goverment wouldn't ban publication of books about French,
and vice versa.

http://www.japanprobe.com/2012/09/2...eijing-bans-publication-of-books-about-japan/


----------



## WME

almostfreebird said:


> But British goverment wouldn't ban publication of books about French,
> and vice versa.
> 
> http://www.japanprobe.com/2012/09/2...eijing-bans-publication-of-books-about-japan/



There was a time when it was the case.
I sincerely believe that most Chinese nowadays have nothing against Japanese, except the educated masses in the cities. Yes the educated masses are the most nationalistic in China these days, because they are the ones who have an interest to comply with the official propaganda.


----------



## almostfreebird

Wie vor hundert Jahren

Helmut Schmidt mag es nicht, wenn jemand im Westen China kritisiert. Bemerkenswert ist seine Begründung dafür. China tue doch nur das, was Großbritannien und andere Mächte vor hundert Jahren auch getan hätten. Wir haben aber inzwischen gelernt, dass das, was Großbritannien und andere Mächte vor hundert Jahren taten, Imperialismus war und deshalb schlecht. Weshalb also - vorausgesetzt natürlich, Schmidt hat recht mit seiner Einschätzung chinesischen Handelns - soll man dann China nicht kritisieren dürfen?

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/...elstreit-wie-vor-hundert-jahren-11901201.html


----------



## LiseR

My country was often invaded - Sweden, Russia, Germany than Soviet Union.
Nowadays it's independent, thank God.


----------



## ancalimon

Here are countries which the English never invaded.

http://media1.ntvmsnbc.com/j/NTVMSN...oryLevel/Dünya/Genel/121109ingiliz.hlarge.jpg


----------



## LilianaB

I just wonder: is there any country which never invaded anyone, even in its tribal stage?


----------



## Tao

The Netherlands have their share of rubbish, of evil. They too have a list of much evil.many wrongs, wars, etc. Is there nation, people, tribe or group that does not have such a list?


EDIT: oh, Liliana already posted that sort of response. I didn't see it


----------



## Kaxgufen

vince said:


> Canadian territory has not been invaded in its entire history. Nor have we invaded anyone. But we are a small country isolated from everyone except the U.S. so that is understandable. However when we were a British colony there were a couple of wars between the British, French, and Americans on what is now Canadian soil.



Puesto así, que piola! Hubo guerras pero Canadá todavía no existía. Tampoco hubo invasiones, los colonos brotaron de la tierra como los hongos, por la humedad del aire.


----------



## Schem

The formation of the current Saudi state was achieved through numerous campaigns and invasions that began with the capture of Riyadh in 1902 and ended in 1934 with the Saudi-Yemeni war. The same, more so, applied to the first Saudi state (1744-1818) and applied to a smaller extant to the second Saudi state (1818-1891). The current Kingdom has annexed the entire Emirate of Shammar in central Arabia, the Kingdom of Hejaz in western Arabia, Idrisid Aseer and parts of Yemen in south Arabia and territories nominally belonging to the Ottomans in the Persian Gulf littoral. Since its unification in 1932, the country has not been invaded by any foreign power.


----------



## Mackinder

luis masci said:


> Yeah, in 1982 my country Argentina, invaded UK.
> Well… as a matter of fact it was 2 small islands belonging to UK.
> … and located about 10.000 miles from UK.
> …but only 400 miles from Argentina
> ….and situated on Argentinean sea.
> UK recuperated these islands after a short war.
> Sorry, now I think about it, I’m not sure it was really what we can say properly an invasion.



The Falkland Islands!  
My teacher taught me there's many sheep in there. Was I happy when I found out its Flag and Coat of Arms has a little sheep. 
In the end, the then Pope ruled in favor of the UK. Thank you teacher for teaching me things!


----------



## luitzen

My country first invaded Frisia and Saxony and later went on to conquer huge swathes of western Europe, leading to the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire and France. More recently it invaded England in 1688 and the Stadtholder William III placed himself on the throne of England and caused quite a stir in Ireland. It was also a Pyrrhic victory for the Dutch, because it meant that the Dutch had to pay for two armies from that moment until the Dutch army slowly became the English army. This event marked the beginning of the decline of the Dutch empire.

Furthermore, it invaded the America's and founded the New Netherlands and New Amsterdam, what later would become part of New England and New York City. In it's 80 years' war, it invaded many Spanish (most of the were actually part of the Portuguese Crown) colonies in Asia and the America's, such as Ceylon, Formosa, Pernambuco and what later became the Dutch East Indies.

The country was invaded by (among others) the French under Napoleon (however it can be said that the French were just invited), which led to the introduction of civil law and many other social innovations. In 1940 the Netherlands were invaded by the Germans, which led to the introduction of universal health care (the system was finally abolished in 2006), the murder of many Jewish people and some geographic changes. We hold no grudge against the Germans or French, since this were short-lived occupation, since we understand that the people who invaded our country one day are not the same as the people living today, since most of the people were not negatively affected for a more permanent period of time and since the Germans effectively murdered those who were, since the Germans realize, regret, and have learned the size of the atrocities committed and since we have now learned how to live with each other.

Even though Frisia was mostly conquered by the Franks, it still existed in the 16th century and voluntarily joined the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands. Nowadays most Frisians hold a grudge against the display of cultural imperialism by the Netherlands. This leads me to conclude that long-lasting occupations are much harder to overcome than short-lived occupation, no matter how benign or malign it is.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

luitzen said:


> Nowadays most Frisians hold a grudge against the display of cultural imperialism by the Netherlands. This leads me to conclude that long-lasting occupations are much harder to overcome than short-lived occupation, no matter how benign or malign it is.



How so? What are the manifestations of Dutch imperialism?


----------



## luitzen

I'm talking about cultural imperialism. It means that you consider your own culture more important than others. For example, most Dutch people from the west of the country will tell people that speak a minority language, to talk "normal Dutch like everyone else". They will make minorities believe that their language and culture is less valuable than the Dutch language and the culture from the randstad area, even though the regions where minority languages are spoken are much more peaceful, much less violent and face much less crime. They will strip minorities from their natural resources and pump it in their "capital district" so that the minorities will think that they're poor and dependent on the central government. They will say that the natural resources of the Netherlands are worth €120 billion when there's nothing in the soil around Amsterdam while people in the north of the country see the value of their houses plummet due to man-caused earthquakes. During an economic crisis they will tell you how regional television and language education is a waste of money while they will not increase funding again once the crisis is over.

And this happens everywhere, not only in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, the province with the highest GDP per capita is Groningen, while the people living there are among the poorest in the country. The people in the north of the country think they're really poor and the west is rich, however they would take the majority of the Dutch natural reserves with them and less than 10% of the population, would they become independent.

In Belgium, the Flemish have lived under the yoke of the French for generations and have replaced the culture and language of Brussels. Now they're wondering why they should keep sending lalala-money to the south.

Maybe we should rename Spain to the Confederation of Catalonia and Basque Country, because if you don't live there, chances are big you're getting lalala-money from there.

Largest ports in Belgium: Antwerp and Brussels-Zeebrugge, largest port in Spain: Valencia, 3rd largest port in France: Duinkerken. There's a pattern here; minorities don't need the central government.


----------



## ewie

ancalimon said:


> Here are countries which the English never invaded.
> 
> http://media1.ntvmsnbc.com/j/NTVMSNBC/Components/ArtAndPhoto-Fronts/Sections-StoryLevel/D%C3%BCnya/Genel/121109ingiliz.hlarge.jpg


To be fair to us cool, quite a few of those countries weren't actually _available_ for invasion at the time we went about invading


----------



## Ёж!

coconutpalm said:


> China has a recorded history of about 6,000 years. In its long long history, it had invaded other countries or had many smaller countries as its tributary states. On the other hand, since 1840, China became a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country and China was to a large extent invaded. In the World War II, it was invaded by Japan.
> Nowadays, the political relationship between China and Japan is very bad. What is worse, many people in both countries loathe the other country.


     To my knowledge, Russia was invaded – I mean, up to the state of losing independence – once, but for long, by Mongols in 12xx, and they nominally ruled the country for about two centuries, from time to time collecting some wealth from people or murdering them. Those wild times were times of frequent incursion, anyway. In its turn, the history of Russia since the Mongol rule was the history of Russian invasions into other lands. The scholarly question is how severe was the Mongol invasion for Rus; naturally, for many this question is not scholarly, but rather nationalistic. What amuses me is that people who promote the national feeling would often make the invasion look rather more strong than less, though it may vary.

         As for more recent events, there was invasion by French troops in 1812 (we call it the war of 1812) and invasion by Germans in 1941 (in Russian, this war is called 'Great'). To my mind, both invasions are now gone events, not already there, although there are political activists, including those inside governmental institutions, who seek to solve their modern-day problems by calling attention to the latter war. My suggestion is that in China these things might happen in a similar way. Wars are to be forgotten the natural way as quickly as the warriors become old (from the moral point of view, didn't they battle for the sake of forgetting the war?). So, if something like grudge goes on about the invasions nowadays, search for the problems that manifest themselves this way now. 


coconutpalm said:


> It seems that you have all had put the bitter history behind, and TIME seems to play the part. You forget it, and then it is long long time ago.
> BUT, many many victims still live today without receiving an apology from the Japanese government. That's why Chinese people don't want to forgive Japan.


Some of my grandparents, when they were children, risked death during the second world war, yet I have nothing in me against Germany. The thing is, we're all humans, all stupid, all cruel and all bad. Warring and concentration camps are not in any way a distinctly specific trait of Germans or Japans, all may build them when time comes.


Brioche said:


> Governments frequently encourage fear of their neighbours to distract the people's attention from internal problems.


I'd say, people distract their attention themselves, governments would not be able to. Then, of course, people blame governments because they don't wish to blame themselves. It's all in the human nature.

======================



Hakro said:


> That's why many Finns (more or less hidden) hate or despise the Russians, even if the invasion wasn't a fault of the Russian people but the communist system.


Totally disagree. How invasion can be not at fault of people?! What communistic can be about people who oppress other people?!


Hakro said:


> I wish you understood that the Finns who are against the Russians are in fact against the Soviet Union, not against ordinary Russian people.





emma42 said:


> Just as I know that people after WW2 came to understand that they had been fighting against the Nazis and not ordinary Germans, many of whom settled in this country, having been prisoners of war.


   It is a great and dangerous logical fault to talk like this. It is the same logical fault that the nazis made. It was ordinary Russians who inhabited the Soviet Union, and it was ordinary Germans who fought for the Third Reich; both empires were comprised of nobody but people (whom else?). Just ordinary people like you and I.


----------



## Ёж!

Ёж! said:


> Totally disagree. How invasion can be not at fault of people?! What communistic can be about people who oppress other people?!


             This is a little bit off-topic, but let me explain myself in a paragraph. If I look a bit more carefully at the Russian history in the beginning of the twentieth century, I notice the following: the fact that the Bolshevik rulers happened to pronounce the agenda of communism is the least important in all the story. The factual details – murders, oppression, ignorance, stupidity etc – don't depend on this fact a little bit. People just didn't care about details of philosophy, they hurried to realize their right to murder. Then later, in subsequent decades, most people never cared for communism in Russia, this is why it couldn't happen (and didn't). But, you could find, for example, short stories by Teffi to see what was the state of the common minds in the Tsarist Russia just before the first world war: it was the state of self-oppression and no-thought. This state of minds had not changed principally during the first world war, only the problems became stronger and, probably, more action-demanding. Demanding what action? Of course, stupid. I'm certain, quite the same should happen under the agenda of devoutness and christian love, if the tsar continued the rule after the war.


----------



## almostfreebird

coconutpalm said:


> China has a recorded history of about 6,000 years. In its long long history, it had invaded other countries or had many smaller countries as its tributary states. On the other hand, since 1840, China became a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country and China was to a large extent invaded. In the World War II, it was invaded by Japan.
> Nowadays, the political relationship between China and Japan is very bad. What is worse, many people in both countries loathe the other country.
> 
> Here arise my questions (a lot ):
> 
> Many countries have a history as invador or occupied territory (or both) of their neighbours.
> 
> How has this coloured their subsequent relations?
> 
> Do you think that they have successfully put their history behind them and looked forward?
> 
> What actions are necessary, on a national and individual basis, for countries to put their past behind them and form a strong bond with each other?
> 
> What are examples of countries which have done this successfully?
> 
> How many years, or generations, does it take for countries to overcome their history?
> 
> Do they need outside assistance to achieve this? What sort of assistance?
> 
> To which point can this country be considered having "overcome this history", as an invador or an invadee?
> 
> You can choose one specific question to answer, but please keep in mind that it's not an invitation to air old grievance.
> 
> At last, I want to say "thank you" to Chaska, Emma and daoxunchang for providing me with excellent suggestions!
> 
> 
> Edit: I edited my post according to CrazyIvan's suggestion.Thank you! And I apologize if my previous words, clearly missending my intention as planned, offend anyone.








 THE NANKING MASSACRE: Fact Versus Fiction

http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/9_S4.pdf

New York Times January 4, 1938 Wireless to the New York Times. SHANGHAI, Jan. 3.
American professors remaining at Ginling College in Nanking as foreign members of the Refugee Welfare Committee were seriously embarrassed to discover that they had been harboring a deserted Chinese Army colonel and six of his subordinate officers.
The professors had, in fact, made the colonel second in authority at the refugee camp. The officers, who had doffed their uniforms during the Chinese retreat from Nanking, were discovered living in one of the college buildings: They confessed their identity after Japanese Army searchers found they had hidden six rifles, five revolvers, a dismounted machine gun and ammunition in the building.
The ex-Chinese officers in the presence of Americans and other foreigners confessed looting in Nanking and also that one night they dragged girls into the darkness and the next day blamed Japanese soldiers for the attacks. 




Analyzing the “Photographic Evidence” of the Nanking Massacre

http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/26_S4.pdf


Some of the photos and videos, which obviously show restoration of order in the Safety Zone immediately after the seizure of Nanking, and also the documentary films which show the Chinese citizens rushing to get ID cards. These photos and films are made by the trustworthy sources, and coincided with the witness of over 100 Japanese correspondents dispatched to Nanking then. 

On the contrary, some of the pictures, which were claimed to have been taken at the time of the massacre, have never indicated the date, the places, and the names of photographers. Also, some of them are showing the entirely different things, and others are forged ones. Even the Chinese cannot have proved the Nanking Massacre.

...

In fact, it estimated that a far larger number of 65,000,000 people had been victimized in China, is still existing under the dictatorial political system, and still persecuting minorities and committing human right violations ceaselessly. Especially in Tibet, more than 1,200,000 people, corresponding to roughly 20% of the total population, were massacred since being unfairly annexed to Communist China in 1955.

Even now, the people in Tibet are still abused, and their cultures are being destroyed. The very Communist China declared that the problem of Tibet is a problem relating to domestic affairs and refused the interference of the foreign nations. On the other hand, the CCP is loudly denouncing the Nanking Massacre which had been insisted on its happening more than seventy years ago, but this is not even clearly defined.




Other reference source:

OBSERVATIONS ON THE FILM JOHN RABE

http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/61_S4.pdf



There Is Not a Single “Real Photograph” Documenting the Nanking Incident

http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/42_S4.pdf


----------



## irinet

We might never invade anyone (I am thinking way back in the past of the old territory of Dacia - that has given the name of our national car -  and its great ruler Decebal) but we were either invaded by many (Romans, Turkish) or forced to make political alliances (Habsburgs, Germans, Russia, ... ) for living in peace. Our borders have been constantly adjusted and re-adjusted by the historical powers at the time. Since then, they (our borders) have never been the same. It is just in the past. Hopefully, we did not tear our territory, as it is now, apart 20 years ago the way other countries in the neighbourhood chose to do.
I hate Politics for that. It always did much harm to humanity and still does. It is a weapon of destruction and of deceit. It will never serve Truth or preach Morality. NATO or UE are dust in the peoples' eyes! 
Therefore, I am wondering who are the genuine providers of the Good and of the Truth in this world?!
I can't really say that Church might be due to the unfortunate historical past of this institution!


----------



## learnerr

almostfreebird said:


> [From an external source]: "The very Communist China declared that the problem of Tibet is a problem relating to domestic affairs and refused the interference of the foreign nations. On the other hand, the CCP is loudly denouncing the Nanking Massacre which had been insisted on its happening more than seventy years ago, but this is not even clearly defined."


Amazing how China is called communist whenever it is going to be condemned, and capitalist whenever it is going to be praised... "Is this baby a boy or a girl?"


----------



## rhitagawr

The English/British invaded loads of countries. The English invaded Wales, Scotland and Ireland. The British carted off millions of slaves from Africa.
The British don't think the French invaded England in 1066. They think the Normans (from Normandy) invaded England. William the Conqueror was the Duke of Normandy and not the King of France.
It must be psychologically difficult to distinguish the people from the government or political system of a country, especially when you're at war with them. 
You can't compare the 1944 invasion of France with the German invasion of France.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

rhitagawr said:


> The British don't think the French invaded England in 1066. They think the Normans (from Normandy) invaded England. William the Conqueror was the Duke of Normandy and not the King of France.



But of course, the Normans spoke French, dressed French and were (if only in theory) part of the Kingdom of France. If it walks like a duck....


----------



## rhitagawr

I agree that the Normans were as you describe them, Pedro. But William the Conqueror invaded England off his own bat and not on the orders of the King of France, who did not participate in the enterprise. It wasn't part of some general French invasion. If it had been, the King of France would have become King of England and there might not have been any of that enmity between England and France which persisted for centuries. In British history books it's called the Norman Conquest and not the French Conquest. William maintained, rightly or wrongly, that he personally had a right to the English throne.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

rhitagawr said:


> I agree that the Normans were as you describe them, Pedro. But William the Conqueror invaded England off his own bat and not on the orders of the King of France, who did not participate in the enterprise. It wasn't part of some general French invasion. If it had been, the King of France would have become King of England and there might not have been any of that enmity between England and France which persisted for centuries. In British history books it's called the Norman Conquest and not the French Conquest. William maintained, rightly or wrongly, that he personally had a right to the English throne.



Well, the Kings of England and France warred until the late Middle Ages over issues stemming from the (Franco-)Norman invasion. Indeed, until Edward I, at the earliest, Kings of England were more French than English. If I recall correctly, Longshanks was the first King of England who could speak English with any degree of fluency. For well over 250 years from 1066 until the early 1300s, the ruling classes in England considered themselves culturally French (as opposed to purely Norman), spoke French, sent their children to be educated at Paris, and so forth.


----------



## ilocas2

invaded - Yes, Czech Republic since its creation at midnight between 31th December 1992 and 1st January 1993 participated in some NATO-led actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, former Yugoslavia

has been invaded - No


----------



## rhitagawr

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Well, the Kings of England and France warred until the late Middle Ages over issues stemming from the (Franco-)Norman invasion. Indeed, until Edward I, at the earliest, Kings of England were more French than English. If I recall correctly, Longshanks was the first King of England who could speak English with any degree of fluency. For well over 250 years from 1066 until the early 1300s, the ruling classes in England considered themselves culturally French (as opposed to purely Norman), spoke French, sent their children to be educated at Paris, and so forth.


Yes, I agree with all of that but that doesn't mean it was a French invasion. Norman, as opposed to French, troops took part in the invasion. If a member state of the Holy Roman Empire had invaded another country, it would have been an action by that member state and not by the Holy Roman Empire. The Normans originally came from Scandinavia. That's why they were called Normans. Had they continued to speak Old Norse (or whatever the Scandinavians spoke at the time) and had they preserved the Scandinavian way of life, the English court would have become more Scandinavian. William the Conqueror didn't invade England to establish the French way of life there.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

rhitagawr said:


> Yes, I agree with all of that but that doesn't mean it was a French invasion. If a member state of the Holy Roman Empire had invaded another country, it would have been an action by that member state and not by the Holy Roman Empire. The Normans originally came from Scandinavia. That's why they were called Normans. Had they continued to speak Old Norse (or whatever the Scandinavians spoke at the time) and had they preserved the Scandinavian way of life, the English court would have become more Scandinavian. Norman, as opposed to French, troops took part in the invasion. William the Conqueror didn't invade England to establish the French way of life there.



We don't disagree on the fundamentals. The Normans invaded England in 1066, not the Kingdom of France. But the Normans were French and pretty quickly the "Norman" invasion became a caste of French nobles (i.e. French-speaking nobles from all over the Kingdom of France) ruling England.

To hear certain English historians, one would think that the Normans and the French were two totally different things.


----------



## rhitagawr

I suppose it''s how you want to look at it. I don't think the Normans and the French were totally separate. I suppose if the King of France and not William the Conqueror had invaded England, the results would have been pretty much the same. I think we can agree to differ about terminology.


----------



## Mirlo

The *United States Invasion of Panama*, code-named *Operation Just Cause*, was the invasion of Panama by the United States in December 1989. It occurred during the administration of U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and ten years after the Torrijos -Carter Treaties were ratified to transfer control of the Panama Canal from the United States to Panama by 1 January 2000.

During the invasion, _de facto_ Panamanian leader, general, and dictator Manuel Noriega was deposed, president-elect Guillermo Endara sworn into office, and the Panamanian Defense Force dissolved.
It was a short term invasion, but never the less an invasion...


----------



## eno2

Scores of times invaded  by Spain, France,  Austria, Netherlands, Germany. After WWII, with the EU, that stopped.

In between, we colonized Congo.


----------



## xBlackWolfx

My country has invaded so many, I don't even know all of them myself, even though I've been a citizen my whole life. And besides, this country has waged quite a few 'covert' wars that the public rarely finds out about. There's probably very few people who know all the countries the US has invaded.

On the other hand, this country has never really been invaded. The closest thing to an invasion this country has suffered was Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks. The latter was the only attack to ever occur in territory that was actually a part of the US, because Hawaii hadn't been made a state yet at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. Of course, Pearl Harbor was taken quite seriously. Our history books teach that the attack took out 90% of the US navy. Its often said that if Japan did try to invade the US, the US would've been unable to do anything about it until they made landfall. They actually launched a retaliation bombing shortly thereafter just as a show of force to try and scare them out of invading the mainland. Oh, and interesting tidbit about Pearl Harbor: Japan had actually sent a diplomat to negotiate an alliance or something with the US. He was actually in the white house talking about making friends with the US while Pearl Harbor was happening. He was apparently meant to be a diversion. He even gave the politicians he met medals as gifts. They tied those medals to the bombs they dropped in the retaliation attack I mentioned.

As for my country's constant warmongering, I assure you that the citizens don't agree with it. Its often said here that the last sensible war this country waged was when they sent troops to Europe to aid the fight against Hitler. During the Vietnam and Korean wars, there was massive protests everywhere. Nobody wanted that war, and no one went into that willingly. In the US we have something called 'the draft' that all male Americans must sign up for. Basically, if they need soldiers they just start drawing names and whose ever name they get must become a solider and do as the US says or be accused of desertion. Virtually everyone who fought in Vietnam was forced to against their will. Honestly, I don't think anyone went to Vietnam willingly. No one was drafted for the war on terror though, which surprised a lot of people when that was discovered. Yeah, everyone who went to the middle east _did _go there willingly. As for that, well people did _initially _agree with it. To everyone, Bin Laden was a mass murderer and everyone wanted his head on a pike. Of course, everyone realized that it more about conquest pretty fast, and it became overly obvious when the US invaded Iraq. None of the terrorists in those planes were from Iraq, and Iraq had nothing to do with the US's initially stated goals. Everyone knew it was just a conquest war for their oil wells, which the government did admit to like 10 years later, though I assure you everyone knew that when Iraq was first invaded.

It took so long for those soldiers to get home, that they started having a problem with soldiers committing suicide because they honestly believed they would never get to go home. And even when they did get to come home, most ended up homeless because the economy had fallen so much in the 10 years or whatever they were gone. They simply didn't know how to make it in society anymore because its so much harder now than it was in 2001. Hell, the late nineties being 'pour' still meant you had a house and cable TV (a new novelty at the time) and no debt. Now, homelessness is on the rise, people have to starve themselves to pay their taxes and everyone's racking up debt that they can't avoid. People are even starting to avoid college because all it does is give you a huge amount of debt that you can never pay off and doesn't open up any more jobs for you. I mean seriously, over a third of people my age and younger are unemployed. And the ones who do have jobs are only able to find petty things like McDonalds to work at. You're lucky if you can find a job where you get paid minimum wage. And yes, you can get away with paying below minimum wage in this country. Certain businesses are exempt from the laws, mostly ones where paying their employees higher than minimum wage would be impossible with the kind of income their industry makes. Also, Wal-mart often hires young people or people with mental disabilities so they can get away with paying them below minimum wage without them asking questions. This country is in really pathetic shape, and its only going to get worse.

Getting back on topic, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan is also why the US was hesitant to help take out Isis. Everyone, even the government, knows Isis exists because of the US invasion. Everyone knows that the entirety of the middle east hates the US now because of what it did. They didn't want to go back there, because they assumed that invading a second would only make things worse. Of course, the attacks in France forced their hand. But still, everyone knows that the US invasion of the middle east was an atrocity that shouldn't have happened and has only resulted in misery and death. Even the government acknowledges this.


----------



## WME

xBlackWolfx said:


> My country has invaded so many, I don't even know all of them myself, even though I've been a citizen my whole life. And besides, this country has waged quite a few 'covert' wars that the public rarely finds out about. There's probably very few people who know all the countries the US has invaded.
> 
> On the other hand, this country has never really been invaded. The closest thing to an invasion this country has suffered was Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks. The latter was the only attack to ever occur in territory that was actually a part of the US, because Hawaii hadn't been made a state yet at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. Of course, Pearl Harbor was taken quite seriously.



Hawaii *was* part of the US, athough not as a State, but as an incorporated territory. Supreme Court rulings had made this pretty clear by that time already.


----------



## Fernando

xBlackWolfx said:


> On the other hand, this country has never really been invaded. The closest thing to an invasion this country has suffered was Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks. The latter was the only attack to ever occur in territory that was actually a part of the US, because Hawaii hadn't been made a state yet at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack.



As you are surely aware, your country was invaded in the war against Great Britain in 1815. They even burned Washington D.C. (which was under construction at the time).

There had been several border incidents with Mexico but I would not call it invasions.


----------



## xBlackWolfx

I actually don't know any details about the revolution. The history books they give you in school just ramble about how horrible the British were. They go over the causes, then they just saw 'there was a war and the US won'. Honestly, most Americans aren't even aware that Britain tried to reclaim the US shortly after that. Really the only part of American history that most Americans have any familiarly with is the civil war (not sure what non-Americans call it). They also know about World War 2, but only the war in Europe. As for the war in Japan, all most people know is Pearl Harbor then the nuclear bombings. That's it. No one really has a clue what happened in between. Even I don't know how the war with Japan played out between those two points.

And yes, the American school system sucks, and even shoves propaganda down your throat at times. When I was in school, we would watch some kind of news station for kids (called channel 1, we watched it throughout middle and high school) which really talked about nothing more than the atrocities being committed by China and North Korea, sometimes Russia. Though they haven't said anything bad about China for long while now, I think because the US government decided suddenly that it wanted to make friends with China. Still, virtually all Americans hate China, Russia, and North Korea. Hell, for most of my life I was told that Putin was an out of control despot who did all sorts of horrible things to the Russian people. I don't even know what to believe anymore.


----------



## Fernando

xBlackWolfx said:


> the civil war (not sure what non-Americans call it).



In Spain, "Guerra de Secesión" (War of Secession). "Guerra civil" (Civil War") is also used, but, with a "surname" (Americana/estadounidense) the name is reserved for OUR own civil war.


----------



## Stoggler

xBlackWolfx said:


> most Americans have any familiarly with is the civil war (not sure what non-Americans call it).



American Civil War is what we call it (as a rule).  We drop "American" if it's obvious that that particular war is the topic of conversation.



xBlackWolfx said:


> As for the war in Japan, all most people know is Pearl Harbor then the nuclear bombings. That's it. No one really has a clue what happened in between. Even I don't know how the war with Japan played out between those two points



Not the Battle of Midway?  If nothing else, it's a good film .

I wouldn't be surprised if younger British people's knowledge of the Second World War is equally as poor (although I could be totally unfair with that statement*).  Sure, we all know that we won the war (seemingly single-handed if you hear some people!), and people know bits about individual battles or actions (e.g. Battle of Britain and the Blitz, D-Day, Dambuster raid), but beyond that I doubt many people know a huge amount more.  I seriously doubt that Britain's dismal display against the Japanese at Hong Kong and Singapore, and our long fight in Burma is really known now.  And that doesn't even begin on aspects of the war that didn't involve Britain.

*many people of my generation and older grew up on a diet of war films and documentaries which helped to educate the public about the war.  In those days we only had three or four channels at the most, so you generally ended up watching such films or programmes as there was little else on.  These days, you can still find those films/programmes but they compete against Thor-knows how many channels so I doubt today's TV-viewing public get to see a lot of those things.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

xBlackWolfx said:


> I actually don't know any details about the revolution.


I would suggest that your whole knowledge of history is sadly deficient.  Under those circumstances, you may want to reconsider whether you should make grand, sweeping statements about how the US (or any other country) has acted through history until you are in possession of more information, and a better understanding of events in the  past.



> Still, virtually all Americans hate China, Russia, and North Korea.


 And you base this statement about the opinions of "virtually all Americans" on ... what, exactly?  My own experience is that most Americans don't think about other countries at all, let alone think about them enough to hate them.  Furthermore, if Americans all had this hatred of Russia that you claim, why then did Russian-apologist Donald Trump get elected?


----------



## JamesM

Excellent point, GWB.   I cannot reconcile in my mind how Republicans have moved from Reagan calling Russia "the evil empire" to supporting a candidate who praises (and is praised by) Putin.  It boggles the mind.  Perhaps this ignorance of history is a big part of the problem.


----------



## xBlackWolfx

Explain how a guy who wants to kick all Muslims out of the country got elected. Explain how a guy who wants to bankrupt this country building a wall got elected. Explain how an obvious narcissist who has had over 3000 people file lawsuits against him for fraud got elected. Explain why Americans would put a guy like this into a position where he can initiate a nuclear exchange without anyone being able to intervene.

I can't fathom how he got elected. Was Hillary really that much worse of a candidate? I think that's what everyone is blaming for this.

I really see no hope for this country anymore. I seriously believe I'm going to live to see its collapse. I just hope I'm not still living here when that happens.


----------



## JamesM

I feel you.    (And I don't mean that in a Trump-y sort of way.)


----------



## Kaxgufen

Fernando said:


> In Spain, "Guerra de Secesión" (War of Secession). "Guerra civil" (Civil War") is also used, but, with a "surname" (Americana/estadounidense) the name is reserved for OUR own civil war.


Eso de "Americana" está por verse. Es una mala traducción.


----------



## Doraemon-

I can only think on Iceland and very small islands (Pitcairn...) that have never been invaded (they descend from the first settlers arrived over the place).
Every other country has been invaded at one time or another of its history. Many others, much less, have also invaded others (specially Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Mongolia, US, Turkey...).


----------



## Doraemon-

Fernando said:


> Partially agreed. You were a part of British state most of time. As a sad way to save my pathetic and sweeping comment (well, Switzerland, Andorra and Austria has neither invaded Spain) I would say there is a legend about Celtics from Ireland migrating to Asturias and Galicia (NW Spain).


Austria did. Succession war (1701-1713).


----------



## Fernando

Doraemon- said:


> Austria did. Succession war (1701-1713).



Agreed. They were supporting the Austrian pretender to the Spanish crown. According to them, they did not feel like invading. I would count it, anyhow.

Swiss have invaded Spain as a part of Napoleonic army and Swiss mercenaries have fought against (and with, for the record) Spanish troops, though not (as far as I know) in current Spanish soil.

I will have to search about Andorra's military conflicts to discard them from the invaders of Spain.


----------



## Doraemon-

I think San Marino has never invaded Spain


----------



## sound shift

Has my country ever invaded another country or been invaded?
Yes and yes.


----------



## Fernando

Doraemon- said:


> I think San Marino has never invaded Spain



Give them time. Tension between Rossi and Spanish bike riders is mounting.

GP San Marino MotoGP 2016: Tensa discusión entre Rossi y Lorenzo en rueda de prensa - Marca.com


----------



## Rallino

Turks never invaded any place.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Rallino said:


> Turks never invaded any place.



Is this some sort of joke?! 

Turkey (including the Ottoman Empire) has an utterly appalling history of conquest, oppression and mass murder.


----------



## Rallino

Sarcasm.


----------



## merquiades

Should Turkey be held responsible for the crimes, conquests, invasions, murders committed by the Ottoman Empire?
Recently a group of Italians informed me that Italy was the continuation of the Roman Empire.  Of course, they emphasized the positive aspects that this entity brought the world.  But where empires are concerned you cannot cherry-pick the good and disown the evil. It sounds a bit absurd to allege that Italy invaded Great Britain and Judea though.  Likewise that Italy created the Latin Alphabet, a calendar, measurements, a code of law, astronomy, roads, etc.
I wonder if Turks feel they have inherited this empire, the positive and/or the negative aspects thereof?


----------



## Perseas

merquiades said:


> Recently a group of Italians informed me that Italy was the continuation of the Roman Empire.  Of course, they emphasized the positive aspects that this entity brought the world.  But where empires are concerned you cannot cherry-pick the good and disown the evil.


In case of the Roman Empire, I think most of us (Italians or not) would think of the positive aspects; rightfully in my opinion. The Roman Empire lasted more than 400 years and Rome itself more than 1200 years. The Roman Empire stretched from north-western Europe to the Near East. As for its civilisation: Literature, architecture, music, philosophy, history, laws, roads , theaters, stadiums ...


----------



## Fernando

You should add the "extra millennium" that the Byzantin Empire provided.

I know it is a cliche, but you have provoked me.











Anyhow, the way that Romans made the aqueducts and sanitation can not be ignored.



> [60] Beguiled by these promises they left their own habitations and came together at the place where Galba directed. He divided them into three parts, and showing to each division a certain plain, he commanded them to remain in this open country until he should assign them their places.
> 
> Then he came to the first division and told them as friends to lay down their arms. When they had done so he surrounded them with a ditch and sent in soldiers with swords who slew them all, they, meanwhile, crying aloud and invoking the names and faith of the gods. In like manner he hastened to the second and third divisions and destroyed them while they were still ignorant of the fate of the first. Thus he avenged treachery with treachery in a manner unworthy of a Roman, but imitating barbarians.
> 
> A few escaped, among them Viriathus, who not long afterward became the leader of the Lusitanians and killed many Romans and performed the greatest exploits, which I shall relate hereafter.
> 
> Galba, being even more greedy than Lucullus, distributed a little of the plunder to the army and a little to his friends and kept the rest himself, although he was already one of the richest of the Romans. Not even in time of peace, they say, did he abstain from lying and perjury in order to get gain. Although generally hated, and called to account for his rascalities, he escaped punishment by means of his wealth.


----------



## Perseas

_- Brought peace.
- Oh. Peace? Shut up! 
_


----------



## merquiades

Fernando said:


> You should add the "extra millennium" that the Byzantin Empire provided.
> 
> I know it is a cliche, but you have provoked me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


  Excellent.  Love those videos.  So could we replace Romans with Italians and it be the same thing?


----------



## Fernando

merquiades said:


> Excellent.  Love those videos.  So could we replace Romans with Italians and it be the same thing?



What have the Italians done for us?

- Well, Renaissance.

- Of course, Renaissance, everybody knows that, but...

- Pizza and pasta.

- Oh, yes, half the world eats pizza and pasta. But, apart from that, what have they done for us?

- Opera...
- Venice, Rome, Naples, Firenze...
- Accounting...
- Fibonacci, Toscanelli.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

.....and the greatest genius the world has ever known, Leonardo da Vinci.


----------



## L'irlandais

Léo who?


----------



## Fernando

L'irlandais said:


> Léo who?



The Argentinian forward of Barcelona FC. I think his parents were Italian or something.


----------



## Tao

The Netherlands were once invaded and controlled by France and later by nazi Germany. The Netherlands once took control of and colonized Indonesia starting in the 17th century. It also colonized Surinam in South America.


----------



## Doraemon-

Tao said:


> The Netherlands were once invaded and controlled by France and later by nazi Germany. The Netherlands once took control of and colonized Indonesia starting in the 17th century. It also colonized Surinam in South America.


Also Sri Lanka, India, Taiwan, Brazil, Antilles, New England (New Netherland), South Africa...


----------



## Fernando

Doraemon- said:


> Also Sri Lanka, India, Taiwan, Brazil, Antilles, New England (New Netherland), South Africa...



And Belgium (several times), France (Nap wars), Spain (War of Spanish Succession), briefly UK (last time the Glorious Revolution) and I am sure I forget something.

Of course, they were also invaded by Spain (or Spanish/Austrian Netherlands).


----------



## Tao

Heh heh heh. What a list.


----------



## AutumnOwl

Frank78 said:


> I think the list is shorter when mentioning European countries which Germany or German states have never invaded.
> 
> Sweden


Does the Teutonic Order count as a part of Germany? They invaded the island of Gotland in 1398. 
Then there was Albert of Mecklenburg in 1363, who, even if he had a right to the Swedish crown and was asked by some Swedish nobles to become king, did launch an invasion of Sweden, supporten by German nobles and Hanseatic cities, to oust an unpopular king. His invasion did succeed, but it was followed by eight years of civil war, and he was never accepted as king by all Swedes.


----------



## Ben Jamin

vince said:


> Canadian territory has not been invaded in its entire history. Nor have we invaded anyone. But we are a small country isolated from everyone except the U.S. so that is understandable. However when we were a British colony there were a couple of wars between the British, French, and Americans on what is now Canadian soil.


A small country with a territory over 10 000 000 square kilometers!


----------



## Ben Jamin

Etcetera said:


> In fact, in Latvia and Estonia people tend to think that their countries were actually _forced_ into the Soviet Union.


Do you really believe that people in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia  only *think* that their countries were forced to become parts of the Soviet Empire, but it was not really so? Do you believe that Poland, Czechoslovakia Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria really wished to become vassals of the Soviet Union?


----------



## Kaxgufen

Ben Jamin said:


> Do you really believe that people in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia only *think* that their countries were forced to become parts of the Soviet Empire, but it was not really so? Do you believe that Poland, Czechoslovakia Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria really wished to become vassals of the Soviet Union?


Tal vez sí, tal vez no. Hubo gente que estuvo bastante conforme, como en todas partes sucede. Fue una garantía para la continuidad de un sistema y quien estuvo de acuerdo  lo apoyó.


----------



## Fernando

Kaxgufen said:


> Tal vez sí, tal vez no. Hubo gente que estuvo bastante conforme, como en todas partes sucede. Fue una garantía para la continuidad de un sistema y quien estuvo de acuerdo  lo apoyó.



Are you saying there was a widespread support in Central/East Europe to become satellites of USSR? Apart from the Communist Parties, I mean.

There was a joke in Poland in Cold War Era:

Two Poles: Are the Soviets our friends or our brothers? Certainly they are our brothers, because you choose your friends.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Fernando said:


> Are you saying there was a widespread support in Central/East Europe to become satellites of USSR? Apart from the Communist Parties, I mean.
> 
> There was a joke in Poland in Cold War Era:
> 
> Two Poles: Are the Soviets our friends or our brothers? Certainly they are our brothers, because you choose your friends.


The Polish Communist Party was annihilated by the Soviet Union i 1938. Most of the members were summoned to Moscow and killed. Soviets created then their own Polish Communist Party consisting of their loyal agents only and send them to Poland i 1944. The next step was to organize  a Security Police in Poland consisting only of people loyal to Soviets. Then they gradually took control over everything, concluding the process in 1948 when the last independent organization was banned and the last people opposing actively the process jailed or shot.
You can read a very good report on this subject in Anne Applebaum's book _Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe 1944–1956._


----------



## Doraemon-

Ben Jamin said:


> _Canadian territory has not been invaded in its entire history..._
> A small country with a territory over 10 000 000 square kilometers!


And product of an invasion of the French and the English over natives land, and between them.
The USA also invaded Canada in 1775 and 1812.


----------



## Red Arrow

Etcetera said:


> Unfortunately, I just have no time for writing a looong answer to this, but I can think right now of a very good (seems to be good, at least!) example.
> It's Russian-Estonian/Latvian relationships.
> The point is that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonis joined the Soviet Union not so deliberately as some other countries do. In fact, in Latvia and Estonia people tend to think that their countries were actually _forced_ into the Soviet Union. So these three countries (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) were the first to leave the Union in 1991. But the decades of Soviet reign has left the most bitter feelings, and now Estonia and Latvia don't show much friendliness towards the Russians who still live in these countries.
> I don't know much about the actual situation in Latvia, but a friend of mine lives in Tallinn, and fron her words I know that Estonian government has introduced, for instance, a state exam in Estonian, which is absolutely obligatory...
> Let alone the situation with the so-called Estonian Legion. It's really scary!


As someone who lives in a place that has dealt with language issues, I just need to reply to this, no matter how old this post is.
Please read the following quote.


> Anton, a 24-year-old Russian speaking student from Tallinn, considers Estonia to be his home. Furthermore, he shuns the notion of being defined as a Russian compatriot. He argues: “I do not consider myself as a compatriot, because apart from the Russian language, nothing ties me with Russia.”
> He also added that he has “sworn allegiance to Estonia”. When asked if he thinks that Russian speakers in Estonia have legitimate grievances, he provided a quick and brief response, “What kind of provocative question [is that]… I’m fine.” He wittily added, “The ones who do all the complaining, do not do anything. At school they needed to learn [the Estonian language], but not drink in the alleys.” For those Russian speakers that would say they require Russia’s protection, he provided a short but firm answer suggesting that Russia is only a short train ride away: ”If they think they need Russia’s protection, please…luggage, station, Russia.”


The new generation of Baltic Russian speakers

I have no problem at all with Russians living in Estonia or Walloons living in Flanders, but French and Russian are irrelevant languages in these places, just like Dutch and Estonian are irrelevant in Wallonia and Russia.

EDIT: Mind you, I don't mind people who speak their mother tongue in my city. As long as they learn / have learnt basic Dutch.


----------



## eno2

Poner una PICA en FLANDES: Alva.
Spanish Fury.


----------



## Frank78

Doraemon- said:


> The USA also invaded Canada in 1775 and 1812.



Certainly not. It was Britain by then, Canada did not exist before 1867.


----------



## Fernando

Frank78 said:


> Certainly not. It was Britain by then, Canada did not exist before 1867.



Of course, you are right, but Doraemon was answering a post which talked about Canadian territory. I assume he used "Canada" for short. For all territories belonging in the past to a bigger realm the question of the OP is tricky, since many countries appear as falsely peaceful, when they have quarrelled a lot as a part of another country.


----------



## eno2

eno2 said:


> Poner una PICA en FLANDES: Alva.
> Spanish Fury.


The biggest fury of which was the plunder of Antwerp by Spanish troops of Alva. But a lot of Flemish cities got looted by the inventors of the Flamenco. They felt so heartbroken by being so far away from their country.
I can honestly swear we Flemish never invaded any country, while the Spanish invaded practically the whole of the Americas. We just let the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, the Germans invade us in successive waves and tried to survive. First we ourselves, and then our language.


----------



## Fernando

eno2 said:


> But a lot of Flemish cities got looted by the inventors of the Flamenco.



The Flemish. 

About Alva (Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, duke of Alba): Technically speaking, Spaniards did not invade anything in the "Spanish" Netherlands (Flandes, in Spanish usual parlance). They were trying to quell the rebellion of those provinces, which were governed by a king (Emperor Charles V) who was born as Flemish (in Ghent). 

Under Phillip the 2nd and his successors (quasi-autonomous in internal affairs), until 1713, most of the troops under "Spanish" rule (many generals were Italian, French or Belgian) were Belgian. The Spaniards (and Italians, and Germans) did the role of US marines in Vietnam. Most of the fighters were from the place where the fight happened, for simple economic reasons.

And the Dutch burned, raped, looted and slaughtered as well. As anecdotical evidence, I remember a poster in a Flemish church (Ghent?, Brugge?), claiming it was burned by the Calvinists. 



eno2 said:


> I can honestly swear we Flemish never invaded any country, while the Spanish invaded practically the whole of the Americas. We just let the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, the Germans invade us in successive waves and tried to survive. First we ourselves, and then our language.



Since Belgium was born in 1830 as a small nation among biggest nations when most of the colonial pie was done, I do not give you much credit. Anyhow, there is a nice little country, in the midst of Africa, which probably would disagree.

As a part of biggest realms, Belgians did invade other countries. They come to my mind (before Belgium was born, right) the Guardias Valonas (at the service of Spain), and Belgian troops under the rule of Napoleon and then Wellington.

After Belgium was born, you invaded Germany when Germany surrendered in WWI. In WWII, SS had both Walloon and Flemish sections, which invaded just the same countries Germany did.


----------



## eno2

Germany was the aggressor, invader and occupier in the first place but got beaten back
You are deliberately violating the term invasion. Belgium took part indeed in the postwar occupations and pacifying of Germany. . My educators were hit (and ruined) TWICE by German invasions and in my  birth region hundreds of thousand perished in a radius of less than 25 km.
As for Alva, he has a confirmed and well earned reputation as a merciless looter and butcher. A thing his successor Farnese totally refrained from, which even his enemies conceded to his honour. Anyhow, it were the Spanish that split the Netherlands 19 provinces. Later followed multiple invasions of the French and dominance of the francophone elite in which we almost lost our native language.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Colonialism is a Spanish recipe developed in the times of Colón (Columbus)


----------



## Fernando

eno2 said:


> Germany was the aggressor, invader and occupier in the first place but got beaten back
> You are deliberately violating the term invasion. Belgium took part indeed in the postwar occupations and pacifying of Germany. . My educators were hit (and ruined) TWICE by German invasions and in my  birth region hundreds of thousand perished in a radius of less than 25 km.



I did not deny that. I said you invaded. As a response to a deliberate and unprovoked attack, of course. But the thread is about invasions not fair or unfair invasions.



eno2 said:


> As for Alva, he has a confirmed and well earned reputation as a merciless looter and butcher. A thing his successor Farnese totally refrained from, which even his enemies conceded to his honour.



Butcher, maybe. Looter, much the same as every general as his time.



eno2 said:


> Anyhow, it were the Spanish that split the Netherlands 19 provinces.



Simply no. They split themselves. Spaniards simply avoided that one band of the civil war "ate" the whole cake. Who was right and wrong is a nice question, out of the scope of this thread.



eno2 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but Colonialism is a Spanish recipe developed in the times of Colón (Columbus)



You are wrong. Colonialism has existed from the very beginning of Mankind and Romans patented the word. About modern colonization you could be right (Columbus was Italian, but granted), though Northern Europeans were much better in exploiting merciless the local resources. 

But again, out of scope. The question is who invaded who, not why.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Fernando said:


> though Northern Europeans were much better in exploiting merciless the local resources.



Northern Europeans stripped resources but usually managed to leave enough to make life bearable. The Spanish stripped, looted, raped and exterminated en masse. Certainly the most brutal colonizers around in the modern era excluding perhaps Hitler's historically brief foray into Eastern Europe.


----------



## Fernando

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Northern Europeans stripped resources but usually managed to leave enough to make life bearable. The Spanish stripped, looted, raped and exterminated en masse. Certainly the most brutal colonizers around in the modern era excluding perhaps Hitler's historically brief foray into Eastern Europe.



Of course, they left enough to make life bearable... as long you were white. Colonization of South Africa for both Dutch and British is a good example, even in 20th century.

Spaniards were so inefficient "stripping, looting and raping" that masses of Americans are today of Amerindian extraction, just the same as in Australia or United States. So inefficient that the places of Hispanic America where there are virtually no Amerindians got rid of them... after the independence of Spain. They were so inefficient and racist that they were marrying the local nobility a few years after the conquest. Why, if they could rape them?

And a language question about your balanced and tempered post: Why "Spanish stripped"? Should it not be "Spaniards stripped"? We, Spanish-speakers fight with the difference between the nationality an the language names.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Fernando said:


> Of course, they left enough to make life bearable... as long you were white. Colonization of South Africa for both Dutch and British is a good example, even in 20th century.



The colonization of South Africa, while brutal, was nowhere near as savage as what the Spanish got up to from Mexico on down. A better example would be North America where British colonists ended up committing a form of genocide against the native population. But such extreme behaviour was not generally the rule elsewhere.

The exploitation, enslavement, misgovernance and mass murder committed by Spanish imperial forces in Latin America is scarcely believable. The place is still largely a basket case to this day, and much of that can be attributed to the toxic legacy of Spanish colonization.



Fernando said:


> And a language question about your balanced and tempered post: Why "Spanish stripped"? Should it not be "Spaniards stripped"? We, Spanish-speakers fight with the difference between the nationality an the language names.



You appear to take offence at highlighting the gravity of crimes committed by people who are long since dead. I have no idea why this is the case, unless you deny the reality of the Spanish Empire. "The Spanish" in this context is a plural noun referring to the inhabitants of Spain.


----------



## Fernando

Pedro y La Torre said:


> A better example would be North America where British colonists ended up committing a form of genocide against the native population. But such extreme behaviour was not generally the rule elsewhere.



This "a form of" genocide is funny.



Pedro y La Torre said:


> The exploitation, enslavement, misgovernance and mass murder committed by Spanish imperial forces in Latin America is scarcely believable.



I would go further: It is unbelievable.



Pedro y La Torre said:


> The place is still largely a basket case to this day, and much of that can be attributed to the toxic legacy of Spanish colonization.



Oh, yes. We are still to blame because Latin America is in the "middle class" of nations nowadays, despite the fact we do not stay there for 200 years. Meanwhile, you are not to blame that Africa or India are in the bottom wagon, when you were there 50 years ago.

Ah, sorry, then we have USA and Australia, which are among the top countries. A pity 99% of local dwellers are not there to watch what great countries they are now.



Pedro y La Torre said:


> You appear to take offence at highlighting the gravity of crimes committed by people who are long since dead. I have no idea why this is the case,



Because they are long since dead and they can defend themselves no more. 

On my part, I am delighted to see what a big reaction we still cause when we refer to Northern Europeans colonizations. Bad conscience and inherited inferiority complex, maybe.



Pedro y La Torre said:


> unless you deny the reality of the Spanish Empire.



How could I deny the Spanish Empire was real? It was so real, so big and so great (in its evil and good) as it could be at the time.



Pedro y La Torre said:


> "The Spanish" in this context is a plural noun referring to the inhabitants of Spain.



Thank you. I did not even know that possibility existed.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

You seem unaware that I come from a country that suffered appallingly at the hands of another colonial power. 

I don't defend any colonial powers in any way, but the Spanish were particularly brutal. At least the British, for all the bad they did, left an enduring model of law, democracy and governance. If you wish to sugar coat the Spanish Empire, that's up to you.


----------



## Kaxgufen

Fernando said:


> We, Spanish-speakers fight with the difference between the nationality an the language names.


Es que hay que llamar* castellano* al idioma y *española* a la nacionalidad. Adentro o afuera de España, lo mismo da. Así se arregla todo y no se perpetúa el Imperio.


----------



## merquiades

It's useless debating over which colonization was nicer than the other.  In today's standards they all were inexcusable and led to exploitation, killing, rape of the conquered people.  Not so long ago people would defend a positive side to it:  civilizing and chriatinizing of primative peoples. 

Spain has la leyenda negra.... it goes like this,  they came, they saw, they conquered   THey worked the natives to death, pillaged, killed and raped.  Massacred and tortured people who didn't become catholic.  Burnt down temples, looked for gold everywhere and killed for it.  Then when they had killed everyone off, they brought over African slaves and Asian servants...     Miss something?   What is true of that and what is made up is dead in history now.  Should Spaniards take responsibility for what happened?
Incidentally, it is not coincidence that much of the killing off of the indigenous happened after Independence.  Unless they lied to me, my Latin American history teachers said the creoles (Spaniards born in the Americas) and the clergy pushed for independence in the nineteeth century because they were afraid the democratic changes in Spain and Europe (constitution of Cádiz), the Napoleonic- Borbonic invasions and their cultural hegemony would arrive to Latin America and they would lose their privileged position.  After independence it was easier to repress locally rather than wait for instructions from Seville.

The English colonists (with Scots and Irish included in the mix) didn't do much better.  The dividing and conquering,  the partition of countries for better control, has had terrible lasting affects throughout the world:  Northern Ireland, Palestine, the subcontinent.  Demoncracy has only worked in the countries where the European migrants became the majority.  They colonizers were particulary cruel in the Victorian era.  Remember the Freak SHows where they captured natives from the empire and took them in cages to show them off in fairs (like animals )  in London circuses.    As for their own black legend,  true or false,  Irish-American believe the potato famine was engineered by the Victorians to either kill off the Irish or force them all to go to America, Canada or Australia.  Of course, there is no way to prove this now, but it has stuck.

Let's not forget the French and the Portuguese. "L’Afrique est une table rase sur laquelle on peut tout construire, donc apporter la civilisation est une bonne chose".  And then going back to the Romans.  Colonization is always justified by people at the moment and deplored by ayeryone generations later.


----------



## merquiades

Kaxgufen said:


> Es que hay que llamar* castellano* al idioma y *española* a la nacionalidad. Adentro o afuera de España, lo mismo da. Así se arregla todo y no se perpetúa el Imperio.


De acuerdo, es correcto.  Sin duda alguna, la lengua que habláis todos es el castellano (no existe una lengua española sino una lengua catellana, catalana, asturiana, valenciana, aragonesa, gallega etc etc) pero fuera del ámbito hispano poco importa y será dificil que adopten este término.  Suena raro decir castellano (Castilian, castillan, Kastilian etc.)  Do you speak Castilian?


----------



## Fernando

Kaxgufen said:


> Es que hay que llamar* castellano* al idioma y *española* a la nacionalidad. Adentro o afuera de España, lo mismo da. Así se arregla todo y no se perpetúa el Imperio.



Da igual. La confusión en castellano (como en otros idiomas) se produce no sólo con el idioma español y la nacionalidad española sino con francés, polaco, húngaro, etc.

Por otro lado, el imperio es imposible que se perpetúe porque no existe hace 200 años y no hay nadie que yo conozca que trabaje por su vuelta. Sí que conozco muchos que trabajan activamente por la desunión de los hispanohablantes. Y siempre me ha parecido curioso que se considere por algunas personas que "español" es imperialista y "castellano" (una región de España) no lo es. En inglés no hay duda, el idioma es "Spanish".

Como he dicho ya en los 35 hilos abiertos en WR sobre el particular, yo uso ambos términos indistintamente.


----------



## Fernando

Pedro y La Torre said:


> You seem unaware that I come from a country that suffered appallingly at the hands of another colonial power.



I am totally aware that you come from a country that suffered from the Northern European colonization, which is a good evidence of what I said. And you are white!!! and Christians! (well, the Christian part never bothered very much the Dutch and British). If you were black there would not be a single Irish left.

You come from a country who demanded constantly the assistance of the heinous Spanish Empire, which was the refuge of many Irish. Maybe your countrymates at the time knew better than you.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Fernando said:


> I am totally aware that you come from a country that suffered from the Northern European colonization, which is a good evidence of what I said. And you are white!!! and Christians! (well, the Christian part never bothered very much the Dutch and British). If you were black there would not be a single Irish left.
> 
> You come from a country who demanded constantly the assistance of the heinous Spanish Empire, which was the refuge of many Irish. Maybe your countrymates at the time knew better than you.



Spain murdered, forcibly converted or exiled its Protestants (some of whom went to England). Of course, just as French Protestants fleeing to England and Prussia didn't somehow make those imperial powers benign, Irish Catholics fleeing to serve the King of Spain hardly serves to disprove the exploitative reality of the Spanish Empire.

Anyway, there's little sense continuing such a discussion. You appear to view the entire question in purely nationalist terms.


----------



## Fernando

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Anyway, there's little sense continuing such a discussion.



I agree. When I see one argument among your mantras, I will answer it.


----------



## Doraemon-

Frank78 said:


> Certainly not. It was Britain by then, Canada did not exist before 1867.


Yes, of course it was (the British Empire for being exact), but I'm making a difference between "country" and "state" 
Canada was not an independent state until 1867 but "Canada" existed long before with this name and what was it if not a country?
Should we say otherwise that Ukraine or the Czech Republic have never been invaded?


----------



## JamesM

It was not organized as a country.  There were separate native American nations/tribes in various parts of the geography now covered by Canada.  It was land, to be sure, but it didn't have even the concept of a single name for that land, much like the US before colonial expansion.


----------



## Doraemon-

JamesM said:


> It was not organized as a country.  There were separate native American nations/tribes in various parts of the geography now covered by Canada.  It was land, to be sure, but it didn't have even the concept of a single name for that land, much like the US before colonial expansion.


No; it was not organized "as a state", not as a country. At that time it was known as "the Canadas" (upper and lower Canada), and as "Canada Province" since 1841, and of course all these names refer to countries.
The definition of "country" includes state, and it's commonly used in that sense, but more specifically "country" refers to a territory or portion of land with any kind of geographical, historical or subjective identity, and "state" to a political organization actually in place. Of course Canada didn't exist as a state at that time, and the same for Quebec, but we can talk without any problem of the "invasion of Canada" or the "invasion of Quebec", which are also names for the wars of 1812 and 1775.


----------



## JamesM

> The definition of "country" includes state, and it's commonly used in that sense, but more specifically "country" refers to a territory or portion of land with any kind of geographical, historical or subjective identity, and "state" to a political organization actually in place.



Can you give examples of this?  This is not a way to use "country" that I'm familiar with.  There are, of course, expressions like "the high country" in English, referring to higher altitudes in a particular region, but Canada is purely an artificial construct, as is the United States.  We share a continent (or a portion of a continent, depending on which language you are speaking).  The line of demarcation is not along any natural boundary, at least for large portions of it.

You certainly can't speak of "the country of America" without referring to an artificial construct.  What is now California, where I live, was not in a country called America when it was named California.

In English we can't refer to the "country of Iberia".  We can refer to the Iberian peninsula as a geographic region but Iberia is not a country.


----------



## Fernando

The point of Doraemon is that some lands would seem strangely quiet if we limit the "country" to the definition country=state. As an example, South Sudan or Bosnia would be a realm of peace and love. Meanwhile, the older the state, the more probability to have had wars in its past.

But the discussion is purely nominalist to me. I think we all agree that the state of Canada has never been invaded, while its territory has been invaded.

When I have talked about "Spain" or "United Kingdom" I (and others) have used an inconsistent but convenient mixed method, considering modern states and their historical political predecessors. 

As an example, "Spain" has never invaded "the Netherlands", since the 80 Years War because the troops (Spaniards, Italians, Germans, "Belgians") which invaded (or tried to recover, as you wish) the territory of United Provinces were under the command of Phillip II, III and IV, which were certainly king of Spain, but also kings of Portugal (most of the time) dukes of Burgundy, Brabant, Limburg, counts of Flanders, Artois, Holland, Zeeland, etc.

Technically, Phillip II was not invading nothing, he was repressing an internal revolt. If it was indeed an invasion, technically Portugal or Milan were invading "Netherlands" just the same as "Spain".

But, for the purpose of this thread, I would say that (simplification) "Spain (or Spain and Belgium) invaded the Netherlands".


----------



## DenisBiH

Pedro y La Torre said:


> The colonization of South Africa, while brutal, was nowhere near as savage as what the Spanish got up to from Mexico on down. A better example would be North America where British colonists ended up committing a form of genocide against the native population. But such extreme behaviour was not generally the rule elsewhere.
> 
> The exploitation, enslavement, misgovernance and mass murder committed by Spanish imperial forces in Latin America is scarcely believable. The place is still largely a basket case to this day, and much of that can be attributed to the toxic legacy of Spanish colonization.



That's an interesting perspective. I always had an impression that Spanish colonial rule must have been friendlier towards the natives (at least once they converted to Catholicism) allowing for freer mixing and integration and eventually leading to modern multiracial Latin America where native element is often well-preserved not just racially but even linguistically and culturally, while the standard Anglo approach was one-drop rule, ethnic cleansing and reservations so basically genocide. Was Australia much different from the US, for example?



Fernando said:


> As an example, South Sudan or Bosnia would be a realm of peace and love. Meanwhile, the older the state, the more probability to have had wars in its past.



There was a state called Bosnia before there was a state called Spain on the map. From 1189, one of the oldest South Slavonic charters.


----------



## Fernando

DenisBiH said:


> There was a state called Bosnia before there was any Spain on the map.
> 
> View attachment 24434 View attachment 24435



Granted. Sorry.

My point stands only for the period from the dissolving of Bosnian kingdom (Wiki gives 1377-1463) to 1992.

Note there was one previous "Spain" (Wisighotic Spain, circa 450-711), but current Spanish state can only with a big twist to be considered a heir of that state. According to the criteria you use, Muslims invaded "Spain" in 711 or not.


----------



## DenisBiH

Fernando said:


> Granted. Sorry.
> 
> My point stands only for the period from the dissolving of Bosnian kingdom (Wiki gives 1377-1463) to 1992.
> 
> Note there was one previous "Spain" (Wisighotic Spain, circa 450-711), but current Spanish state can only with a big twist to be considered a heir of that state. According to the criteria you use, Muslims invaded "Spain" in 711 or not.



Yes, well, in this case it is more complex. The state in existence prior to 1463 was called and (very well) known as Bosnia (first banate and then kingdom) with no need for quotation marks. It was so well known that Benedikt Kuripešić, ethnic Slovene Austrian ambassador to the Ottomans travelling through Bosnia in 1531 still mentions it.



> Item wir haben im berürtem *khünigreich Wossen* dreyerley nation und glaubens völkher gefunden.
> Die ersten sein die alten Wossner, die sein des Römischen Christlichen glaubens, die hat der Türgg in eroberung des khünigreichs Wossen in irem glauben angenommen und darinnen beleiben lassen. Die anderen sein Surffen, die nenen sie Wallachen und wir nenens Zigen oder Martholosen. Die khamen von dem ort Smederevo und Khriechisch Weissenburg und haben Sandt Pauls glauben. ... Die drit nation sein die rechten Turggen, ...



As for what came then, you have various opinions. James Ernest Napoleon Zohrab, British Vice-Consul to Sarajevo circa 1860:



> From 1463 to 1850 the Bosniak Mussulmans enjoyed all the privileges of feudalism. Sincerely attached to their religion they respected the Sultan as its head, but as their temporal Sovereign they bore him no affection, and they looked and still look upon the Turks as a separate people.
> 
> This statement seems to be contradicted by the fact that the Bosniaks have frequently fought under the banners of the Sultans. Their aid was, however, always conditional, that is, they lent their aid on condition that none of their privileges should be invaded, and that they should continue to govern Bosnia through their own Chiefs. The Porte submitted to these conditions till 1850, when, finding herself sufficiently powerful to assert her authority over these provinces, she sent an army, under Omer Pasha, who subdued the country and introduced reforms.
> 
> *Thus Bosnia and Herzegovina may be said to have been but tributary States of the Porte for nearly three centuries.*


Even if we discount any discussion in that direction, and we may, Bosnia-Herzegovina was a state within federal Yugoslavia, with its own representatives in federal institutions, its own constitution, parliament, presidency, territorial defence. Nobody woke up in 1992 and decided to draw our borders.

Constitution of the People's Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, 1946 (original text is in Serbo-Croatian, translation is mine):



> Article 1
> People's Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a people's *state* in the form of a republic.
> 
> Article 2
> People's Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, created in its liberation struggle of all the peoples of Yugoslavia as a *people's state*, and expressing, based on the *right of self-determination*, including the *right to secede* and join into a union with other peoples, the free will of its people without regard to nationality and religion, has united, based on the *principle of equality*, with People's Republic of Serbia, People's Republic of Croatia, People's Republic of Montenegro, People's Republic of Macedonia and People's Republic of Slovenia into a common, federal state - the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia.


Some would argue similarly for Austro-Hungarian period (own parliament etc.)

If the South Sudanese can claim something similar, by all means.


----------



## Fernando

DenisBiH said:


> Yes, well, in this case it is more complex. James Ernest Napoleon Zohrab, British Vice-Consul to Sarajevo circa 1860:
> 
> 
> Even if we discount any discussion in that direction, and we may, Bosnia-Herzegovina was a state within federal Yugoslavia, with its own representatives in federal institutions, its own constitution, parliament, presidency, territorial defence. Nobody woke up in 1992 and decided to draw our borders.
> 
> 
> Some would argue similarly for Austro-Hungarian period (own parliament etc.)



Certainly the Balkans produce more history than they can consume.

But Bosnia did not have a sovereign external policy. Its influence on a decision to invade Vienna in 1683 was the same (probably greater) than any other Turkish province, including Anatolian provinces. Bosnia invaded "Austria" because "Turkey" invaded Austria. The only reason why we can say that Turkey invaded Austria is because we assume that today's Austria or Turkey are the heir (legally or simbolically) of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Even when I doubt that any Austrian kid feels much moral responsability for invading Bosnia.

It is the problem of the Empires. Nobody loves them. The peoples inside them take all their advantages and the spoils of wars but, when they go badly, everybody separate from them and proudly proclaims that it has no part in any of their atrocities while they claim all their good deeds were made by its current nationals.



DenisBiH said:


> If the South Sudanese can claim something similar, by all means.



My knowledge of the history of South Sudan is (even) littler than of the Balkans history. I doubt they can claim a history of political unity for any relevant period, but I would be surprised if, in their children's History books, they would not talk about Nubia, the invasion of the Egyptian Empire and so on.


----------



## Doraemon-

JamesM said:


> Can you give examples of this?  This is not a way to use "country" that I'm familiar with.



I've already mentioned some (Ukraine and Czech Republic, have they ever been invaded?), but we could talk about others. Did the vikings invade England? There was no Kingdom of England yet. Did Charles V rule over Germany? Was Philip II King of Spain? These 'countries' weren't official states at this time, but there was a notion of England, Germany and Spain as countries (territories with some shared identity, and commonly referred with this name at the time). Wasn't Italy a country before Garibaldi? It was not a state or unified kingdom yet, but of course everyone used that name long before, to refer to what, if not a 'country'? How do you call what Italy, England or Germany were until their unification?

But for talking about some cases I think you can be familiar with: Scotland and Wales are also oficially countries right now, although they're not states. Aren't they countries, really?

And no, Iberia is a geographic notion (it includes Portugal, and it does not include the Canary Islands, for instance), but, did Spain ever invade the Americas (Aztecs, Incas...)? I don't know if you know it, but Spain did not exist at the time. There was the kingdom of Castile, and the Crown of Aragon, under the same monarch, but no "kingdom of Spain" existed at this time. Now it does, but not at that time. However we all say that "Spain conquered the Aztec Empire" and even "Spain conquered Mexico", no matter if there was no Spain and no Mexico yet. It depends on what we refer, to countries or states.
Spain is maybe the best example: you see everywhere references in English to the Spanish Empire and the kings of Spain, the Spanish discovery and conquest of America... but there was no such state called 'Spain'.


----------



## JamesM

> How do you call what Italy, England or Germany were until their unification?



If I'm talking about that time I wouldn't use Italy, England or Germany, just as I wouldn't use France. As you said, they weren't countries.  In the 10th century people in Normandy didn't call themselves French, neither did the Bretons or the Burgundians.  They wouldn't have referred to the area as France or being part of a country called France.  It's *anachronistic* to call that France.  I know we often do that, as we do with Spain, as you said.

What would you say were the borders or extent of the country you refer to as Spain in the 15th century, given that there was no state called Spain?  Was Al-Andalus in Spain?  Was Barcelona or Valencia?  Was Pamplona?

I honestly don't get your idea of Spain being a country that has existed throughout all these periods as something separate from Spain the state.  I can't imagine what outline you would draw on a map.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Germany certainly existed before 1871, as did Italy. Ireland existed long before the English arrived. Delineating precise birthdates isn't easy.


----------



## JamesM

A region called Germania existed since the Romans, but how would you describe it as a country?  This is an honest question.  This distinction doesn't make sense to me.  Antarctica, for example, is a recognized land mass and region of the world but I wouldn't call it a country.  Germania consisted of many groups of people speaking different languages, having different cultures and not united in any way as a single entity.

To me, a country is a self-organized (or imposed) nation of some kind.  It's not a region of land or a hodgepodge collection of various groups.  That's why I think Canada didn't actually exist as a country until the French and English arrived.  Before that the land was shared by many nations of First Peoples but there was no distinction between the area now called North Dakota, US and the area now called Manitoba, Canada.  It wouldn't make any sense to the people living there to divide them along the Canada line or to lump them into a "country" that included Algonquin, Ojibwa, Chinook and Eskimo nations.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

America didn't spring into existence in 1776. In culture, language, history and its legal and political systems, the United States of America is merely a continuation of British America.

If we were sitting here in 1774 with Benjamin Franklin and he was speaking about 'my country', he would be referring to Pennsylvania and wider British America.

Germany has existed since at least the Early Middle Ages (splitting of West and East Francia), Italy has existed since Antiquity. Ireland had a High King and cultural unity since records began but no central political unity until relatively recently.

There's no easy answer to this question.


----------



## JamesM

So how do you apply that thinking to 15th Century Spain?  What would be the extent of the country of Spain in 1450, for example?  And 1150?

I'm trying to understand if this "country of Spain" we are talking about is an underlying geographic region or a political designation. I don't see how you can have a country of Spain without a state of Spain.  What is now Spain was many different states.

So did Spain stop at Al-Andalus in 1150?  What made it Spain, then? Did it extend to Catalonia and Aragon? How?  How can you consider these separate kingdoms and principalities part of Spain at that time?

I honestly don't get the distinction and I would like to understand.


----------



## DenisBiH

As for Al-Andalus, it might be worthwhile to explore the actual words used by Ibn Khaldun to describe his sentimental attachment to Spain as discussed in the introduction to the English translation of Muqaddimah (see below). A friend of mine might have a copy of the Arabic original, I'll try persuading him to take a look.


> The refugees from Spain who came over and settled in northwestern Africa in ever growing numbers constituted a group apart, an elite group at that.15 The Muqaddimah frequently mentions the great contributions made by Spanish refugees to the cultural life of northwestern Africa and stresses the superiority of Spain and the originality of its civilization.16 This shows that Ibn Khaldun, more than a century after his family had left Spain, still considered himself to some extent a member of that glorious civilization. Though as a Muslim he felt at home everywhere within the vast realm of Islam, he preserved throughout his life a deep and sincere affection for northwest Africa, the country of his birth, for the "homeland" where, according to the poet, "the amulets are first attached" to the child. He always felt a certain responsibility for the political fate of northwestern Africa and took an active interest in it long after he had left. His true spiritual home, however, was Spain.
> 
> This background helps to explain the ease with which Ibn Khaldun shifted his loyalties throughout his life. No matter how high his own position or that of his ancestors before him at one or another northwest African court, no matter how close he was to a ruler, he did not feel bound by "group feeling," as he might have called it, or by the ties of a common cultural heritage. He considered the ruler his employer, and his position a job to be done, neither more nor less. But his basic loyalty to Spain and its civilization had a much more far-reaching effect on Ibn Khaldun's personality and work than these transient ties. It gave him a remarkable detachment with respect to the historical events that took place before his eyes In a sense, it enabled him to view them as an impartial observer, even when he was deeply involved personally.
> 
> ...
> 
> In Ibn Khaldun's autobiography, references to his teachers' Spanish origin or to their close connections with Spain occur with regularity.


----------



## JamesM

Yes, I'd be curious what word he actually used that was translated as "Spain".


----------



## DenisBiH

I just took a quick look in the English translation. He actually describes Spain at some length in the book, including mentioning the "lands" of Castilla and Leon in it. His Spain seems to include Portugal, but exclude Catalonia - which he places in Gascogne - and his references to Spain seem to be mostly to Muslim-held Spain, but sometimes also to Christian-held Spain, however he also sometimes calls Spanish Christians "Galician nations" for some reason, and refers to Goths as having been in Spain prior to Muslim conquest. I'll send the rest of the quotes to you via PM.


----------



## JamesM

So, do countries change shape over time? What defines a country, if not the government that oversees it?


----------



## Fernando

JamesM said:


> So how do you apply that thinking to 15th Century Spain?  What would be the extent of the country of Spain in 1450, for example?  And 1150?
> 
> I'm trying to understand if this "country of Spain" we are talking about is an underlying geographic region or a political designation. I don't see how you can have a country of Spain without a state of Spain.  What is now Spain was many different states.
> 
> So did Spain stop at Al-Andalus in 1150?  What made it Spain, then? Did it extend to Catalonia and Aragon? How?  How can you consider these separate kingdoms and principalities part of Spain at that time?
> 
> I honestly don't get the distinction and I would like to understand.



As I said before, Wisighotic Spain was for 250 years an unified state (as long as the definition of "state" applies to something in the Low Middle Ages. Spain (Hispania) was also a politically unified (non sovereign) political entity under Roman Empire).

During Muslim rule, al Andalus was a unified term for all Spain (including Portugal). For Christian kingdoms, the issue was to restore Gothic unified rule. Navarre king styled himself, at the height of his power as "rex totius Hispaniae" (king of all Spain). There was a kind of kings of thrones involving Aragon, Navarre, Castille, Leon, Portugal and Muslim kingdoms (Badajoz, Toledo, Sevilla, Granada,...) to be the hegemon.

Only in 1492 (conquest of Granada) most of Spain is unified (leaving aside Navarre, incorporated soon afterwards). Portugal is left aside, only united in 1580-1640.

When Jews are expelled in 1492, all Jews from Spain and Portugal are Sephardies, not making much distinction of from which particular kingdom they come from. Same can be said for the Muslim diaspora, as Denis has evidenced.

Of course, as I said before, there was no political Spain until 1476 at best, but since current Spain is the political heir of all those kingdoms, I think the term "Spain" can be used for the previous period for convenience.

I agree with you that using "Canada" for the precolonization period is an abuse of the word (unless it is used only in purely geographical terms).


----------



## Fernando

DenisBiH said:


> however he also sometimes calls Spanish Christians "Galician nations" for some reason



I do not really know, but Galicia (who included Portugal for much of the Middle Ages) was a good part of the Spanish Kingdoms, even when it was included politically in the kingdom of Leon (which included kingdom of Galicia, Leon proper, kingdom of Asturias, etc.). Also, Galicia included Santiago de Compostela, which was a major center of pilgrimage in the Middle Ages.

Galicia, alongside Asturias (which share many cultural elements), Cantabria and Basque lands were the only parts of Spain which never had a real Muslim rule.


----------



## DenisBiH

Fernando said:


> I do not really know, but Galicia (who included Portugal for much of the Middle Ages) was a good part of the Spanish Kingdoms, even when it was included politically in the kingdom of Leon (which included kingdom of Galicia, Leon proper, kingdom of Asturias, etc.). Also, Galicia included Santiago de Compostela, which was a major center of pilgrimage in the Middle Ages.
> 
> Galicia, alongside Asturias (which share many cultural elements), Cantabria and Basque lands were the only parts of Spain which never had a real Muslim rule.



Yeah, perhaps it's because of Santiago, he mentions it by name.



> East of Salamanca, at the southern end, is Avila, and east of it, the land of Castilla with the city of Segovia. North of it is the land of Leon and Burgos. Beyond it to the north is the land of Galicia, which extends to the corner of this portion. At the Surrounding Sea there, at the far point of the western side (of the triangle), the portion includes the region of Santiago-that is, (Saint) Jacob.


----------



## JamesM

> Spain (Hispania) was also a politically unified (non sovereign) political entity under Roman Empire).



But that really was Iberia, right? It included the Basque country and what is now Portugal.  What i mean is, that was the entire peninsula with a natural border of the Pyrenees.  So, when you use "the country of Spain", since you say it's different from a state, does it include Portugal in your definition of "Spain"?  How does the country differ from the state and does that country you call Spain change size and shape over time, sometimes including Portugal and Galicia, sometimes not?  And if country and state are different, what would cause the shape or size of a country to change, since we are not talking about political borders?

I haven't ever used country and "state" in the sense of political state (not a subdivision of a larger country) as anything other than synonyms before. I'm genuinely curious where you draw the distinction between them.  And, as you can tell, I'm going to keep asking the question until someone addresses it directly.


----------



## Fernando

JamesM said:


> But that really was Iberia, right? It included the Basque country and what is now Portugal.  What i mean is, that was the entire peninsula with a natural border of the Pyrenees.  So, when you use "the country of Spain", since you say it's different from a state, does it include Portugal in your definition of "Spain"?  How does the country differ from the state and does that country you call Spain change size and shape over time, sometimes including Portugal and Galicia, sometimes not?  And if country and state are different, what would cause the shape or size of a country to change, since we are not talking about political borders?



It was not only a geographical division, it was an administrative division. "Hispania" had indeed convenient geographical borders, but under the Romans, people from Hispania were perceived as different from the rest (as Greeks, Gauls, Germans, Italians, Syrians, Jews, Africans...) .

In the case of Wisighotic Spain, it was a political unity, which, from app. 589 to 711 was a Catholic country comprising current Spain+Portugal+Septimania (more or less, French Catalonia) - Canary Islands. I think it is not an abuse to call it for short "Spain".

Would you call 1812 United States,"United States", even when most of its current territory was not included? Would United States still be United States if it lost Guam? Or Hawaii? Or Florida? Or Washington?

The relation of country and state is very complicated and there has been wars (I mean, many wars) about that. State has a somewhat precise definition (is Somalia a state? Transnistria?) but I would not say that country is meaningless.



JamesM said:


> I haven't ever used country and "state" in the sense of political state (not a subdivision of a larger country) as anything other than synonyms before. I'm genuinely curious where you draw the distinction between them.  And, as you can tell, I'm going to keep asking the question until someone addresses it directly.



About the relation of country and state, I am using in this thread a very loose definition. If you intend to attack my above definition (I am using the same word, Spain or France or Britain for any current state and any previous state(s) which is the predecessor - legally or preceived - of that current state) I surrender. I am unaware that it is unprecise and with huge grey zones.

I am pretty sure that it has a bunch of holes. But any stricter definition leaves out too many conflicts. As an example,"United Kingdom" did not invade India. At first, a private company did. Mongolia did not invade anything. Mongols (basically Russians) did. Russia did not invade Afghanistan. URSS did. Persia did not invade Greece. Achaemenid Empire did. Germany did not invade France. The German Empire and Third Reich did, which had different constitutions and territories.

But as I said before, is a nominalist discussion. In 1588 Spain intended to invade UK? Well, if we all know which were the legal constitutions of Spain at the moment and UK and we all know that Spain was not current Spain and that UK was not current UK, I find the shortcut convenient and not so big a lie.


----------



## JamesM

I'm sorry if I came off as attacking in any way. I really didn't understand the distinction that was being made.

Where I got lost was with Canada as a long-existing country.  I can see it better with Spain in your latest explanation. I think it works much better with stable peoples who have lived under many governments.  Coming from the "new world" it's much harder to picture.  

Thanks for the patient explanation.


----------



## Fernando

JamesM said:


> I think it works much better with stable peoples who have lived under many governments.  Coming from the "new world" it's much harder to picture.



I fully agree. Notice you live in a strange state. United States in 1800 is clearly the same state as today's USA , with the same Constitution and much of the same political institutions from the very beginning. Your national territory has changed but has always growed and your core territory is the same as circa 1848. This core territory has never been occupied for long for any other 

The "state" alleguiance of your people is compatible with other "national" allegiances (Italian Americans) and you resolved your regional problem in 1865 (with one million deaths, but as I said in other thread yesterday, nothing is cheap).

If you compare with Europe, as Churchill said about the Balkans, we produce more history (=wars) than we can consume. Every single square inch of Europe has been conquered, reconquered, changed populations, etc.

Much the same can be said about Middle East and many parts of Asia. Americas and specially, subsaharian Africa History is less recorded but far more complex.


----------



## Sepia

JamesM said:


> It was not organized as a country.  There were separate native American nations/tribes in various parts of the geography now covered by Canada.  It was land, to be sure, but it didn't have even the concept of a single name for that land, much like the US before colonial expansion.



So it was the territory of several nations that was invaded.


----------



## JamesM

Sepia said:


> So it was the territory of several nations that was invaded.



Absolutely, but none of those nations would refer to the collective territory of all their nations as "Canada".  It was not a single unit in their eyes.


----------



## Sepia

JamesM said:


> Absolutely, but none of those nations would refer to the collective territory of all their nations as "Canada".  It was not a single unit in their eyes.



You are totally right - and by the way, talking about Canada: A small piece of Danish territory was actually invaded by the Canadian Armed Forces a few years ago. We are talking about Hans Island, up in the Arctic Sea, which despite being a part of Denmark/Greenland for about 200 years, became the object of a Canadian invasion, as the set foot on the island, put up a Canadian flag and a sign saying "Welcome to Canada". Word has it, that they also left a bottle of Canadian Club as a welcome gift for any visitors. Later, after that the Canadians went home the Danish Navy came, took down the Canadian flag, put up a Danish flag and left  a bottle of Danish snaps in stead of the whisky, which was impounded.

I know this is slightly off topic because the Canadians did not invade the whole country, but only a small part of it. Nevertheless, technically this IS an unsolved territorial dispute involving the armed forces of two countries. It is also known as "The Whisky War".


----------



## Sepia

JamesM said:


> So, do countries change shape over time? What defines a country, if not the government that oversees it?



What defines a state/country legally is that it has a territory with defined borders, a government and citizens/corporations that pay taxes.


----------



## JamesM

Sepia said:


> What defines a state/country legally is that it has a territory with defined borders, a government and citizens/corporations that pay taxes.



Exactly my understanding before this thread.

I think the term country is being used loosely here to describe a region that is currently called X and had previous countries/states occupying roughly the same area in the past.  I can understand the reasoning.  Rome didn't invade France; it invaded Gaul.  It's easier, through, to speak of that region in modern-day terms even though it was not an organized single unit at the time of the Roman invasion.


----------



## Sepia

JamesM said:


> Exactly my understanding before this thread.
> 
> I think the term country is being used loosely here to describe a region that is currently called X and had previous countries/states occupying roughly the same area in the past.  I can understand the reasoning.  Rome didn't invade France; it invaded Gaul.  It's easier, through, to speak of that region in modern-day terms even though it was not an organized single unit at the time of the Roman invasion.



It is probably because a country usually is a sovereign state, although it does not have to be. The Kingdom of Denmark consists of three countries: Denmark, The Faeroe Islands and Greenland. All three are autonomous, but all under the protection HM the Queen an therefore also the Danish defense forces.  In German the partially autonomous subdivisions of the Repuhblic are called "countries", which normally is translated with "federal states". I don't think there is one single definition of  the word itself, but what a sovereign state is,  is clearly defined in international law.


----------



## eno2

How many times has Flanders (Belgium) been invaded?


> Caesar’s armies invaded in 57 BC and held Gallia Belgica for 500 years
> 
> Germanic Franks took regional control. This change in power was the basis of Belgium’s current language division – the northern region became German speaking while the southern portion remained Latin based
> Parties of raiding Vikings forced the growth of feudal domains in the 9th and 10th centuries. While the kings of *France* and emperors of *Germany* had overall control, the real power was held by local counts who ruled over fiefdoms.
> The local counts, though, were vassals of the French king.
> 
> The dukes of Burgundy ruled later for less than a century, but the cultural changes that took place during this time were profound.
> 
> Hapsburg rule: Charles V, PhilippII ruled from Spain...
> . In 1566 the Protestants revolted, running riot and ransacking churches in a wave of violence that has become known as the Iconoclastic Fury. Philip retaliated with a force of 10,000 troops led by the duke of Alva, who set up the Council of Blood, which handed out 8000 death sentences to those involved in the rioting.
> 
> In the turbulent years that followed – a period known as the Revolt of the *Netherlands* – the present-day borders of Belgium, *Luxembourg* and the *Netherlands* were roughly drawn. *The Netherlands* expelled the Spaniards, while Belgium and *Luxembourg*, known then as the Spanish *Netherlands*, stayed under southern rule.
> *Brussels* was proclaimed capital of the Spanish *Netherlands* in 1585 and Protestants were forced to leave; thousands of tradespeople and anti-Spanish freethinkers moved north to the *Netherlands*.
> . French plans to dominate *Europe* meant war after war was fought in this buffer land. *France*’s Louis XIV sent in his military engineer Vauban to fortify strongholds – the result can be seen today in mighty citadels such as that in *Namur*.
> 
> The fighting came to a head with the War of Spanish Succession (1701–13), which saw the Spanish *Netherlands* handed over to the Austrians
> The mighty Austrian Hapsburgs ruled from 1713 to 1794
> 
> 
> After yet another battle in 1794, the French reclaimed the region and the following year absorbed it into *France*
> 
> After the defeat of Napoleon in Waterloo: 1815
> *The united kingdom of the netherlands*
> 
> *Belgian independence*
> *At the Conference of London in January 1831, the European powers recognised Belgian independence
> 
> 1914, Germany violated Belgian neutrality and occupied thecountry
> 
> On 10 May 1940 the Germans launched a surprise air attack on the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg and within eight days Belgium was occupied*


History of Belgium - Lonely Planet Travel Information


----------



## Jason_2_toi

If invading includes trying to kill you by dropping bombs on you from aircraft, then my country was invaded by the Germans.


----------



## L'irlandais

Scotland wasn’t invaded by the Germans.  You could say « Scotland was bombed by the Germans during WWII. »


> _verb_
> past tense: *invaded*; past participle: *invaded*
> 
> (of an armed force) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it.
> Eg. "_during the Second World War the island was invaded by the Axis powers_"
> synonyms: occupy, conquer, capture, seize, take (over), annex, ....
> invade | Definition of invade in English by Oxford Dictionaries



Pictish Scotland was invaded by Irish tribes.  In AD 83 at Mons Graupius the Romans invaded Scotland, at least according to some ancient texts.  However there is no material evidence for this battle. Later the Scottish coast was raided by Norsemen.  But I guess raided is not the same as invaded either.


----------



## Fernando

L'irlandais said:


> Scotland wasn’t invaded by the Germans.  You could say « Scotland was bombed by the Germans during WWII. »



Certainly.



L'irlandais said:


> In AD 83 at Mons Graupius the Romans invaded Scotland, at least according to some ancient texts.  However there is no material evidence for this battle.



Romans certainly invaded a good portion of current Scottish territory. You do not need Mons Graupius battle to prove it.
Antonine Wall - Wikipedia



L'irlandais said:


> Later the Scottish coast was raided by Norsemen.  But I guess raided is not the same as invaded either.



Northumbria (invaded by the Vikings) was part (current) England, part (current) Scotland. Virtually all Scottish isles (Orkneys, Shetland, Hebrides) were Norwegian fiefdoms.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Fernando said:


> Northumbria (invaded by the Vikings) was part (current) England, part (current) Scotland. Virtually all Scottish isles (Orkneys, Shetland, Hebrides) were Norwegian fiefdoms.



Strangely enough, even under Viking rule, the Scottish isles kept speaking Gaelic and are now the last bastions of Gaelic in Britain.


----------



## Fernando

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Strangely enough, even under Viking rule, the Scottish isles kept speaking Gaelic and are now the last bastions of Gaelic in Britain.



Well, no Norwegian, Swedish or Danish are spoken in Normandy, Sicily, Russia, Dublin or the Danelaw. For whatever reason (low numbers, inferiority of the written culture, I do not know), Vikings/Norsemen did not seem very interested in speaking with natives or spreading their languages. I know there are Scandinavian loanwords in English and place names. It would surprise to me if Gaelic would not have loanwords from Scandinavian languages (via Ireland or the Scottish isles).


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Fernando said:


> Well, no Norwegian, Swedish or Danish are spoken in Normandy, Sicily, Russia, Dublin or the Danelaw. For whatever reason (low numbers, inferiority of the written culture, I do not know), Vikings/Norsemen did not seem very interested in speaking with natives or spreading their languages. I know there are Scandinavian loanwords in English and place names. It would surprise to me if Gaelic would not have loanwords from Scandinavian languages (via Ireland or the Scottish isles).



It did indeed. And reasonable numbers of Scandinavians settled in what became Scotland. Places like Dublin, at one point, were almost wholly Scandinavian. But for whatever reason, their language disappeared while Gaelic soldiered on (although English has now largely killed off what remains of Gaelic save in certain specific areas).


----------



## The Lord of Gluttony

Is Russia ever been invaded? I know the parts of it were, but not the majority of its land.


----------



## Frank78

The Lord of Gluttony said:


> Is Russia ever been invaded? I know the parts of it were, but not the majority of its land.



"Russia" in a strict sense not but Grand Duchy of Moscow was invaded and controlled by the Golden Horde (Mongolians).


----------



## Fernando

Frank78 said:


> "Russia" in a strict sense not but Grand Duchy of Moscow was invaded and controlled by the Golden Horde (Mongolians).



Yes, Mongols are the only people which I think they were close to rule all the current Russian (or Imperial Russian) realm.


----------



## bennymix

On March 9, 1916, Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa and his _Villistas_ invaded Columbus, New Mexico


----------



## eno2

The villager Lukas to Eleni in the film Eleni about civil war and  the  Greek ELLAS communists 'invading their mountain village Lia: <It finally came tot his, we have been invaded by everybody, now we have been invaded by ourselves.> Έγινε κι αυτό. Όλοι ήρθαν να μας σκλαβώσουν . Τώρα σκλαβονόμαστε  μονάχοι  μας.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

The Hindu-nationalist government in New Delhi has decided to revoke Jammu and Kashmir's special status under the Indian constitution and split the state in two. This extreme act will surely trigger a regional conflict.

India Moves to Revoke Kashmir’s Special Status Amid Crackdown - New York Times


----------



## ewie

It can surely only be a matter of time before Communist China invades Hong Kong and imposes martial law leading to direct rule.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

The Chinese are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If similar protests had broken out in Mainland China, the tanks would surely have been sent in long ago (over a million Uighurs are currently locked up in gulags so as to be "re-eductated in Communist principles"). But Hong Kong is the model that the PRC is looking to sell to Taiwan (in between regular bouts of threatening devastating war if Taiwan should ever declare outright independence). If the Chinese Army intervenes in Hong Kong, the model for reincorporating Taiwan dies with it. As (in all probability) does Hong Kong's economy.


----------



## Frank78

Pedro y La Torre said:


> But Hong Kong is the model that the PRC is looking to sell to Taiwan (in between regular bouts of threatening devastating war if Taiwan should ever declare outright independence). If the Chinese Army intervenes in Hong Kong, the model for reincorporating Taiwan dies with it. As (in all probability) does Hong Kong's economy.



Why should Taiwan declare independence? It IS China. It would be completely against their identity.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Frank78 said:


> Why should Taiwan declare independence? It IS China. It would be completely against their identity.



The major split in Taiwan politics is between those who see Taiwan as part of China and are content with the current situation where the PRC claims to govern the whole of China but only exercises control on the "mainland", and those who think that Taiwan should declare independence and forget about the rest of China.

Hong Kong protests give Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen a boost as elections approach


----------



## Doraemon-

Frank78 said:


> Why should Taiwan declare independence? It IS China. It would be completely against their identity.



Practical reasons.


----------



## Rondivu

Pedro y La Torre said:


> The Spanish stripped, looted, raped and exterminated en masse. Certainly the most brutal colonizers around in the modern era excluding perhaps Hitler's historically brief foray into Eastern Europe.



If Spain killed so many people in South America, how come there is still a lot of indigenous population in Spanish speaking countries and in North America the majority of people are all white, how many millions were killed by the English?
The result is that while Latin America has an enormous mestizo (and indigenous) population, in the USA the few remaining natives are still concentrated in "Reservations".

As early as 1512, the Laws of Burgos regulated the behavior of the Spaniards in the New World forbidding the ill-treatment of indigenous people and limiting the power of the colonists. Which other European colonial power did that? It is true that these laws were not always followed across all American territories but at least they reflect the will of the Spanish colonial government of the time to protect the rights of the native population.




Pedro y La Torre said:


> The place is still largely a basket case to this day, and much of that can be attributed to the toxic legacy of Spanish colonization



The current delay in Latin America with respect to North America, as many people think, is not due to a culture of entrepreneurism and science that supposedly existed in British but not Spanish power. Mexico City was notoriously larger, more dynamic and richer than Washington at the time of the American independence and the salaries of the indigenous were higher than in the West. The contrast is coherent with the quite higher number of printing presses, universities, scientific publications and hospitals documented in the Spanish Empire.


----------



## Frank78

Rondivu said:


> Mexico City was notoriously larger, more dynamic and richer than Washington at the time of the American independence and the salaries of the indigenous were higher than in the West.



I didn't know Washington, D.C. had existed at the time of the American independence.


----------



## Rondivu

Frank78 said:


> I didn't know Washington, D.C. had already existed at the time of the American independence.


I take it you've never heard about the *Second War of American Independence (1812- 1815). *


----------



## Frank78

Rondivu said:


> I take it you've never heard about the *Second War of American Independence (1812- 1815). *



You neither wrote "second" nor did you mention the word "war" nor is it an established historical term.

The American independence was 1776 even though the "first" war of independence lasted longer.


----------



## ewie

Rondivu said:


> I take it you've never heard about the *Second War of American Independence (1812- 1815). *


That's called *the War of 1812* in the English-speaking world.


> In the 19th century, the Canadian historian William Kingsford was only half-joking when he commented, “The events of the War of 1812 have not been forgotten in England for they have never been known there.” In the 20th, another Canadian historian remarked that the War of 1812 is “an episode in history that makes everybody happy, because everybody interprets it differently...the English are happiest of all, because they don’t even know it happened.”


Very true.


----------



## L'irlandais

Well it may not be public knowledge, and certainly was over shadowed by the Napoleonic Wars here in Europe.  But anybody with an interest in Regimental history or firearms will be aware of the conflict, even if they view it differently from our English speaking friends on the other side of the Pond.  In 1813 the East India Company lost its monopoly in India, and soon they had bigger fish to fry.


----------



## L'irlandais

Fernando said:


> It would surprise to me if Gaelic would not have loanwords from Scandinavian languages (via Ireland or the Scottish isles).


I missed that earlier, Some Irish words with Norse Origins  | Irish Archaeology


> Unsurprisingly, considering the Viking’s seafaring roots, the majority of these words are associated with nautical activities.


And markets, coinage ...


----------



## symposium

Frank78 said:


> I didn't know Washington, D.C. had existed at the time of the American independence.


I had assumed he was talking about the Independance of the Spanish colonies in America around 1810, and not the Independance of the British colonies in America in 1776...


----------



## I am a Chinese boy

Outsider said:


> Portugal invaded and was invaded by many countries throughout history, but it was mostly all a long time ago. We don't really relate to such ancient events. The only recent example I can think of are the colonial wars in Africa and Asia (East Timor), which ended in 1974. Many people who fought in those wars are still alive. But since this is a case of invading, rather than being invaded, I don't think it's what you're asking for.
> 
> If I may hijack the conversation just a little bit, why is the memory of the Japanese invasion of China still so strong in the minds of the Chinese? Many European countries were also invaded during World War II, but I don't think the French still feel any animosity towards the Germans because of that, today (though I'm not so sure about Eastern Europeans, who had it much worse). And are you sure that the Japanese give as much importance to that event as many Chinese seem to, nowadays?


The reason why French no longer feel animosity toward Germany is that the president of Germany knelt right in front of some tomb monument set up for the French victims as we watch in domumentary. But, up till now, Japanese government has always insisted that Japan did never ever invade China, and there is no such mention written in Japanese history book where Japanese youth cannot learn this particular dark history. You feel me?


----------



## bennymix

I do feel you.  I'm sure you are ready for China to take its main place in the world and not be invaded by foreign empire-builders.


----------



## I am a Chinese boy

bennymix said:


> I do feel you.  I'm sure you are ready for China to take its main place in the world and not be invaded by foreign empire-builders.


呵呵


----------



## Flaminius

No, I don't.  I don't feel you.

Willy Brandt, then Chancellor of West Germany, did not kneel for the French victims.  I pray you take a moment to get historical facts straight.

The leaders of Japan have made quite a few formal statements to the former belligerencies and colonies regarding the pains and damages wrought by the Imperial Japan.  Claiming that "Japanese government has always insisted that Japan did never ever invade China" is an act of propagating utter falsehood.  The statements are out there for everyone to read and scrutinise.  You may not agree with some of the wording, but a careful reader would not commit to a blanket negation such as "Japan did never ever invade China."

Criticisms to "Japanese history book (当作textbooks)" has prompted the Japanese government well before I reached school age (e.g., a statement by the Cabinet Spokesman in 1982, 「歴史教科書」に関する宮沢内閣官房長官談話).  Whatever effects those statements had, I didn't need extra reading outside school materials to realise that Japan did terrible things to China in the past.  Again, you may not like some of the ways history is taught in Japan, but a careful reader would not commit to a blanket negation such as "Japanese youth cannot learn this particular dark history."


----------



## Ben Jamin

Countries don't invade other countries. States do it, usually. In some rare situations in history a country may have been invaded by private forces from another country, without a permission of the state the invaders came from.
99 % of existing states have a history which includes being invaded by someone, and 98% have invaded someone. So, it would be more practical to ask if there is a country that has never been invaded or if there is a state that has never invaded anybody (it includes also earlier state organisms occupying the same territory  or  people that have formed the earlier state).
As far as I know Monaco and San Marino have never invaded anyone, and Iceland has never been invaded. Singapore has not invaded anyone, but the countries that possessed the territory in the past did.


----------



## WME

Ben Jamin said:


> Countries don't invade other countries. States do it, usually. In some rare situations in history a country may have been invaded by private forces from another country, without a permission of the state the invaders came from.
> 99 % of existing states have a history which includes being invaded by someone, and 98% have invaded someone. So, it would be more practical to ask if there is a country that has never been invaded or if there is a state that has never invaded anybody (it includes also earlier state organisms occupying the same territory  or  people that have formed the earlier state).
> As far as I know Monaco and San Marino have never invaded anyone, and Iceland has never been invaded. Singapore has not invaded anyone, but the countries that possessed the territory in the past did.




Finally a factual, irrefutable contribution to this thread ! thanks


----------



## L'irlandais

Never say never.  Heinrich Böll incorrectly stated that Ireland never invaded another country.  Okay he was very disallusioned with Germany at the time.
The Vikings in Iceland
Subsequent waves of Viking settlement in Iceland could be view as invasion, since their origins varied.  Whatever the case, the island had a turbulent and violent past like most other nations.


----------



## Fernando

UK invaded Iceland during WWII. Maybe the unhabitants were not very against it, but British did not ask for permission.

Invasion of Iceland - Wikipedia


----------



## Ben Jamin

Fernando said:


> UK invaded Iceland during WWII. Maybe the unhabitants were not very against it, but British did not ask for permission.
> 
> Invasion of Iceland - Wikipedia


This is a disputable matter.



L'irlandais said:


> Never say never.  Heinrich Böll incorrectly stated that Ireland never invaded another country.  Okay he was very disallusioned with Germany at the time.
> The Vikings in Iceland
> Subsequent waves of Viking settlement in Iceland could be view as invasion, since their origins varied.  Whatever the case, the island had a turbulent and violent past like most other nations.


As far as I know Iceland was uninhabited before the Norsemen began to settle there, so how can we speak about invasion? The subsequent waves of colonist were not invaders. But the Icelanders themselves were dangerous aggressors.



WME said:


> Finally a factual, irrefutable contribution to this thread ! thanks


I forgot to write about one more type of invasion: hordes of nomadic people (without a permanent "country" of their own and not yet organized as a state), acting as a (tribal og intertribal) military organization, like Huns, Kipchaks, Proto-Bulgars, Germanic tribes, Slavic tribes, Mongols, and many others.


----------



## Fernando

Ben Jamin said:


> This is a disputable matter.



Well. A foreign army entered the country without written or tacit permission of any authority under international law or domestic constitution (king of Danemark or the government of Iceland). The Icelandic government protested. Not very much, but protested. 

During the following years Iceland could not have any foreign affairs, a foreign army (Britosh, Canadians, Americans) was in its territory.

It is more disputable if Netherlands invaded England in 1688 or whether UK and France invaded Norway in 1940, but I think the Icelandic case qualify.


----------



## L'irlandais

Not sure how happy you think Gardar the Swede (also known as Garðarr Svavarsson, c. 860s CE) was when folks from Norway turned up to settle in a country he’d already established a settlement in.  It’s convenient to view Vikings as some sort of homogeneous group.  





> They are said to have encountered Irish monks on the island who then left because they did not wish to live among the heathens. Hjörleifr and his party were killed by the slaves they had brought from Ireland


Doesn’t much sound like they controlled the country.  Then having resisted Norwegian sovereignty over Iceland for a long time, it was finally imposed. Icelanders might view this as being invaded, certainly it was unwanted outside interference in their land.


----------



## L'irlandais

Ben Jamin said:


> ... As far as I know Monaco and San Marino have never invaded anyone, and Iceland has never been invaded. ...


Both states are too tiny to raise an army to’invade anybody.  As seen in their inability to keep out any invaders.  38k and 34k populations, even at a massive 10% of the population conscription wouldn’t field much of an army, and how could they afford to arm and train such a force?  A regiment, or at best a brigade, without any tanks wouldn’t be much use.  States tend to invade their neighbors, Mussolini had a army of 2 and a half million, equiped with tankettes.  The idea of invading is usually to hold on to lands gained.
San Marino sought to remain neutral during WWII.  I guess it depends if you view the American troops driving the Germans out as a liberation or not.  If you opt for liberation, then what does that make the earlier German occupation of the neutral state.  Technically, the Allies were an invasion force in Italy at that time.  Let’s stick with the official position, that it was an incident, rather than an invasion.  (Lots of armed soldiers killing lots of other armed defenders kind of incident. Reference: Battle of Monte Pulito.). A footnote: The British government refused to compensate St Marino for this incident and subsequent occupation. They argued that as Germany had breached the Sammarinese neutrality before Allied troops had entered the country, it was not liable.


> Attempting to remain neutral during World War II, Prince Louis II’s sympathies were strongly pro-French. Nevertheless, the Italian army invaded and occupied Monaco. After Mussolini's collapse in Italy, Monaco was also occupied by Nazi Germany. Prince Louis used the Monaco police to warn Jewish inhabitants of Monaco that they were marked to be arrested by the Gestapo, allowing them time to escape. Many Jewish people who lived in Monaco at the time were able to escape due to the assistance of Louis II and the Monegasque police. With the German army retreating from Monaco due to the Allied advance, an American contingent liberated the Principality.


 Source: History of Monaco
Looks like they considered themselves invaded at least twice.


----------



## Perseas

Ben Jamin said:


> As far as I know Monaco and San Marino have never invaded anyone, and Iceland has never been invaded. Singapore has not invaded anyone, but the countries that possessed the territory in the past did.


Cyprus, Malta.


----------



## Fernando

About Cyprus: Its history in its current avatar is so short that I guess you are right. I would like to be present in an argument among a Cypriot and a North Cypriot about who invaded who.

Malta has certainly been invaded and HAS invaded. The Order was an aggresive military power which acted as corsair and attacked Muslim possessions in N Africa, most times as allies of other Christian powers (kings of Spain, specially).


----------



## rhitagawr

I've arrived late to the forum, so this has probably been said already. In any case, I decided not to read all of the 483 preceding contributions. It depends what you mean by _your country_ and _invade_. My country, whether in the form of England, Great Britain, or the United Kingdom has invaded hundreds of countries. But did, for example, the Maoris regard what is now New Zealand as a country? Probably not. A previous contributor said that states and not countries invade other countries. A fair point, but when did states arise in the modern sense?
William the Conqueror invaded England and parts of what is now Wales in 1066. It didn't take William and his successors long to turn their attention to the remaining areas in what became the United Kingdom. Parts of what is now Scotland were ruled by Norwegian kings after 1066. Does 'Scotland' in this context refer to a political entity or was it just the name given to the area north of England? I'd better let our Scottish friends answer that.
William III's landing in Torbay in 1688 started off as an invasion, although William became a constitutional monarch.
I suppose you could say England was invaded by Bonnie Prince Charlie, although not by Scotland, in 1745.
French troops landed in Wales during the Napoleonic Wars, although this hardly amounted to a raid, let alone an invasion.
German troops occupied the Channel Islands in the Second World War. As the Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom but owe their allegiance directly to the monarch, I suppose it's a moot point as to whether they're part of 'my country.'
Borders changed frequently in the past (less often now). So I suppose you can pick and choose as to what you call your country. Celtic nationalists don't regard the United Kingdom as their country, although it is from a legal point of view.


----------



## Ben Jamin

rhitagawr said:


> I've arrived late to the forum, so this has probably been said already. In any case, I decided not to read all of the 488 preceding contributions. It depends what you mean by _your country_ and _invade_. My country, whether in the form of England, Great Britain, or the United Kingdom has invaded hundreds of countries. But did, for example, the Maoris regard what is now New Zealand as a country? Probably not. A previous contributor said that states and not countries invade other countries. A fair point, but when did states arise in the modern sense?
> William the Conqueror invaded England and parts of what is now Wales in 1066. It didn't take William and his successors long to turn their attention to the remaining areas in what became the United Kingdom. Parts of what is now Scotland were ruled by Norwegian kings after 1066. Does 'Scotland' in this context refer to a political entity or was it just the name given to the area north of England? I'd better let our Scottish friends answer that.
> William III's landing in Torbay in 1688 started off as an invasion, although William became a constitutional monarch.
> I suppose you could say England was invaded by Bonnie Prince Charlie, although not by Scotland, in 1745.
> French troops landed in Wales during the Napoleonic Wars, although this hardly amounted to a raid, let alone an invasion.
> German troops occupied the Channel Islands in the Second World War. As the Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom but owe their allegiance directly to the monarch, I suppose it's a moot point as to whether they're part of 'my country.'
> Borders changed frequently in the past (less often now). So I suppose you can pick and choose as to what you call your country. Celtic nationalists don't regard the United Kingdom as their country, although it is from a legal point of view.


I have modified my post adding the following: "_I forgot to write about one more type of invasion: hordes of nomadic people (without a permanent "country" of their own and not yet organized as a state), acting as a (tribal og intertribal) military organization, like Huns, Kipchaks, Proto-Bulgars, Germanic tribes, Slavic tribes, Mongols, and many others_." In addition, I mentioned that private armies and plundering parties also used to invade other countries (and do it sometimes today). In any case, a country can be invaded, but can't invade, unless we define _country_ and _state_ as synonyms, which is quite normal in the colloquial language, but sounds too "low key" in a serious discussion.


----------



## rhitagawr

I don't see how I can say that the Romans, or even the Anglo-Saxons, invaded 'my country.' However, I feel some affinity with Anglo-Saxon England even as it was before England was unified. I don't suppose the British thought they were invading Australia even though that was what they were doing in practice. They would have said they were just claiming it for the British crown. The language and culture of the Channel Islands is English and people can pass freely between there and the United Kingdom. So I regard the German occupation of the islands in much the same way as I would have regarded a German occupation of the Scilly Isles.


----------



## Fernando

If one define country as a bunch of people, countries can not be invaded, you can only invade the land where many of them are a majority or is considered its historical soil with more or less reasons.

If you take nuances too far, the common phrase 'Germany invaded Poland in 1939' turns to 'Soldiers of various ethnicities, specially Germans, Austrians , Slovaks, Czechs, self-perceived Bavarians with maybe some Ashkenazi Jews and Frisians, under the authority of the 'Deutsches Reich' invaded the territory  under the authority of the restablished  Rzeczpospolita Polska, inhabitated by Poles, Jews, Germans, Lithuanians, Ukranians et altrii.


----------



## L'irlandais

Both Germany and Russia invaded Poland in 1939, is fine.  Even if one was called the Soviet Union at the time.  Moscow was calling the shots.  Folks need to be careful qbout being pedantic, there are revisionists only too happy to take advantage of such squabbling.  Russia Says It Never Invaded Poland in 1939


> “Nonetheless, after the German invasion on September 1, 1939, the Soviet government declared that Poland no longer existed as a nation and that such a vacuum threatened Soviet security. On September 17, the Red Army crossed the border into eastern Poland, annexing territory that the Soviets had long considered their own. Their feelings toward Poland would later be seen in the Katyn massacre of 1940, when the Soviet NKVD secret police murdered 22,000 Polish military officers, policemen and educated professionals. After years of claiming that the Nazis did it, in 2010 the Russian Duma voted to blame Stalin for the killings.


Reality versus revisionism


> ...it would be one thing if today's Russian government acknowledged that the Soviet Union had illegally seized Polish territory, and then pointed out that the Soviet state no longer exists, and that Russia has moved on from Stalin's day. Yet by attempting to stamp out criticism of Soviet aggression, Russia is essentially announcing that it accepts responsibility for the historical legacy of the Soviet Union.


----------



## twenty6

While there certainly has been a lot of talk about China, no one has bothered to answer all these questions, so here:

The modern Asian states (China, Japan, Mongolia, the Koreas, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, etc.) did not exist for most of history. Many are fairly young, though that depends on how you define a country. Since I am most familiar with the history of the "Chinese heartland" (plains around the Yangtze and Yellow rivers), I'll focus on China. First, we'll define "China" as the dynasties in general (I will talk about them as a collective whole, since all but two of the twenty "official" dynasties were founded by people of Han ethnicity). Let's get started:

*How has this coloured their subsequent relations?*
China always had -- and still does have -- strained relationships with its neighbors. The Chinese dynasties were always engaged in fighting some other nation or the other. Consequently, there is great tension in Asia amongst China and her neighbors today. Though all Asian countries are economic partners, deep down there are still groups of people in every country that hold grudges against others. Everyone hates everyone to some extent, and the counterweight of economic benefit can only do so much. Foreign affairs sound very much like hostage negotiations when things get hot (i.e. trade wars). The CCP itself uses the double-edged sword of nationalism very well: they promote economic activity (or at least pretend to) while affirming China's status as the main power broker of East Asia (and Asia in general).

*Do you think that they have successfully put their history behind them and looked forward?*
Not really. From my experience, the younger generations of China (and all other Asian countries) are rather open-minded towards other states. Much of the tension between China and other Asian states is due to historical causes, of which there are many, and Asians highly value the concept of "face", or dignity. You could say that countries have big egos, with China having a pretty large one, but good at relative self-control.

*What actions are necessary, on a national and individual basis, for countries to put their past behind them and form a strong bond with each other?*
The biggest obstacle is, as said, historical issues. China has fought South Korea, Japan has fought China, South Korea has fought Japan, Vietnam has fought China, China has fought India, and so on and so forth. Dignity and face are very important concepts, but they do wear out over time, so I think the best strategy is  to continue economic partnership and just simply wait without stoking political flames.

*How many years, or generations, does it take for countries to overcome their history?*
Sadly, this question is almost unanswerable for us Chinese, since our history is just a long list of wars, rebellions, civil wars, and the such. If one had to give an estimate, the time period is as short as some 50 years, as evidenced by the continuous warfare but surprising tolerance of periods such as the Three Kingdoms period, the Five Dynasty Ten Kingdoms period, or the peace between the Xiong-nu (Hsung-Nu; nomadic tribesmen from the north and believed to be the ancestors of the Huns of Europe) and the Han dynasty. However, this is far from certain, given the traditional conflict between countries and states.

*Do they need outside assistance to achieve this? What sort of assistance?*
This is also a very hard question, since for most of history China has prided itself on being self-reliant (up until WWII, when the Nationalist government had to rely on the Allied Powers for support and equipment). If the globalized economy were to keep going with minimal political interference from China or any other trading partner, I think that old wounds could and will be repaired quickly.

*To which point can this country be considered having "overcome this history", as an invador or an invadee?*
I do not believe a country can overcome their history, since that is what makes up the core of the spirit of that country, though we can learn to accept it. Still, there is no definite answer.

Quick edit: In response to almostfreebird's post (#340) on the Nanking Massacre (or the Rape of Nanking, whichever you prefer): your source is not reliable, and I can't find anything else (from an official media outlet or government organization anywhere) that supports your claims. Your first claim that ex-Chinese officers blamed certain attacks on the Japanese is possible, but that doesn't support your claim that the Nanking Massacre was fake. Your second source, and your claim about Japanese journalists witnessing Chinese citizens getting ID cards has a blatant fact that you simply ignored: the witnesses were all Japanese journalists, and during that time there was no free press anywhere, not in the Allied powers and certainly not in the Axis. I do not refute your claim about China being a dictatorship and that it is suppressing ethnic minorities, but keep in mind that almost every country and ethnic group has done this. Every culture is racist in some sort (including both the Han Chinese and the Japanese), and it is almost impossible for a society to exist without invading, or being invaded. No country is a paragon of virtue or peace.


----------



## Sepia

Fernando said:


> Well, no Norwegian, Swedish or Danish are spoken in Normandy, Sicily, Russia, Dublin or the Danelaw. For whatever reason (low numbers, inferiority of the written culture, I do not know), Vikings/Norsemen did not seem very interested in speaking with natives or spreading their languages. I know there are Scandinavian loanwords in English and place names. It would surprise to me if Gaelic would not have loanwords from Scandinavian languages (via Ireland or the Scottish isles).



They do speak English in Dublin. It is modern version of the North Germanic language that was brought there by the "Danes".
Probably not really by the Danes but by people from Jutland and Anglia which is the Area south of Jutland where the town of Haithabu emerged. In fact they were not Danes although their territories became part of Denmark. The Danir were the people from the Islands. So what you call Scandinavian loanwords may not really be loanwords at all. But there was probably differences in the language of the Danir and of the Jutes. However Danish became increasingly more influence in what later became known as Denmark.


----------



## Ben Jamin

twenty6 said:


> While there certainly has been a lot of talk about China, no one has bothered to answer all these questions, so here:
> 
> The modern Asian states (China, Japan, Mongolia, the Koreas, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, etc.) did not exist for most of history. Many are fairly young, though that depends on how you define a country. Since I am most familiar with the history of the "Chinese heartland" (plains around the Yangtze and Yellow rivers), I'll focus on China. First, we'll define "China" as the dynasties in general (I will talk about them as a collective whole, since all but two of the twenty "official" dynasties were founded by people of Han ethnicity). Let's get started:


Would you be so kind as to send the list of the twenty dynasties?


----------



## twenty6

Technically there are more than 20 (it depends on how you define "dynasty"; some existed at the same time, others weren't founded by Han people, etc.):
夏，商，周（split into 东周and 西周, the latter of which is split into 春秋and 战国periods), 秦，汉(split into 西汉and 东汉, between which there is the 新潮), 三国(period with three separate kingdoms)， 西晋and东晋(the end of 东晋was the 十六国or Sixteen Kingdoms period), 南北, 隋，唐，五代十国(five dynasties ten kingdoms period),宋 （split into 北宋and 南宋, the latter of which existed as a rump state after the Mongol invasions)， 辽/西夏/金 existed at the same time, then 宋, 元, 明， and finally the 清.

In English romanization: Xia, Shang, Zhou (Spring/Autumn and Warring States periods), Qin, Han, Three Kingdoms, Jin, Sui, Tang, Five Dynasties Ten Kingdoms, Song, Yuan, Liao, Western Xia, Jin (not to be confused with the other Jin), Ming, and Qing.

Brief summary of all military actions during the dynasties (and beyond):
Xia (possibly mythical): War between Huang Di and Yan Di, with Huang Di winning and establishing the Xia dynasty. Various petty conflicts within the imperial court.
Shang: Rebellion that overthrew Xia, continuous conquest and expansion until another rebellion that overthrew the Shang to establish the Zhou.
Zhou: Wars between feudal lords (called 诸侯) leads to the Spring/Autumn period (100+ vassal states) and the Warring States period (7 vassal states).
Qin: Civil war against other 6 states, unification of China, rebellion against Qin.
Han: Overthrew Qin, brief period of civil war, endless wars in the West with various central Asian countries and with the Xiong-Nu people.
Three Kingdoms: Continuous civil war between local warlords leads to the establishment of the three kingdoms, which all hate each other and fight civil war on an even larger scale.
Jin: The "Eight-King Panic" between the various local administrators appointed by the emperor. Leads to civil war and invasion of the Jin by Xiong-Nu.
Sixteen Kingdoms: Continuous civil war.
South-North: See above to Sixteen Kingdoms.
Sui: Relative peace (still petty conflicts in various places).
Tang: Expansion to the west.
Five Dynasties Ten Kingdoms: Continuous civll war.
(Song/Liao/Western Xia/Jin existed all during the Five Dynasties Ten Kingdoms period)
Yuan: Mongol invasion. Invasion of Japan, Korea, Vietnam (all led by the Mongols, who used Chinese troops and generals).
Ming: Rebellion that overthrew the Mongols. Short period of civil war. Even more expansion.
Qing: Manchu invasion from north that overthrew the rebels that overthrew the Ming. Opium Wars, Revolution of 1911.

Republic of China (original): Civil war with warlords, World War II, civil war with CCP (no military action after they fled to Taiwan, unless you count the 10 U-2 spy planes they used over the mainland, which were all shot down).
People's Republic of China: Korean War, various border conflicts with Pakistan, India, invasion of Vietnam (yes, they invaded Vietnam).


----------



## Ben Jamin

twenty6 said:


> Technically there are more than 20 (it depends on how you define "dynasty"; some existed at the same time, others weren't founded by Han people, etc.):
> 夏，商，周（split into 东周and 西周, the latter of which is split into 春秋and 战国periods), 秦，汉(split into 西汉and 东汉, between which there is the 新潮), 三国(period with three separate kingdoms)， 西晋and东晋(the end of 东晋was the 十六国or Sixteen Kingdoms period), 南北, 隋，唐，五代十国(five dynasties ten kingdoms period),宋 （split into 北宋and 南宋, the latter of which existed as a rump state after the Mongol invasions)， 辽/西夏/金 existed at the same time, then 宋, 元, 明， and finally the 清.
> 
> In English romanization: Xia, Shang, Zhou (Spring/Autumn and Warring States periods), Qin, Han, Three Kingdoms, Jin, Sui, Tang, Five Dynasties Ten Kingdoms, Song, Yuan, Liao, Western Xia, Jin (not to be confused with the other Jin), Ming, and Qing.
> 
> Brief summary of all military actions during the dynasties (and beyond):
> Xia (possibly mythical): War between Huang Di and Yan Di, with Huang Di winning and establishing the Xia dynasty. Various petty conflicts within the imperial court.
> Shang: Rebellion that overthrew Xia, continuous conquest and expansion until another rebellion that overthrew the Shang to establish the Zhou.
> Zhou: Wars between feudal lords (called 诸侯) leads to the Spring/Autumn period (100+ vassal states) and the Warring States period (7 vassal states).
> Qin: Civil war against other 6 states, unification of China, rebellion against Qin.
> Han: Overthrew Qin, brief period of civil war, endless wars in the West with various central Asian countries and with the Xiong-Nu people.
> Three Kingdoms: Continuous civil war between local warlords leads to the establishment of the three kingdoms, which all hate each other and fight civil war on an even larger scale.
> Jin: The "Eight-King Panic" between the various local administrators appointed by the emperor. Leads to civil war and invasion of the Jin by Xiong-Nu.
> Sixteen Kingdoms: Continuous civil war.
> South-North: See above to Sixteen Kingdoms.
> Sui: Relative peace (still petty conflicts in various places).
> Tang: Expansion to the west.
> Five Dynasties Ten Kingdoms: Continuous civll war.
> (Song/Liao/Western Xia/Jin existed all during the Five Dynasties Ten Kingdoms period)
> Yuan: Mongol invasion. Invasion of Japan, Korea, Vietnam (all led by the Mongols, who used Chinese troops and generals).
> Ming: Rebellion that overthrew the Mongols. Short period of civil war. Even more expansion.
> Qing: Manchu invasion from north that overthrew the rebels that overthrew the Ming. Opium Wars, Revolution of 1911.
> 
> Republic of China (original): Civil war with warlords, World War II, civil war with CCP (no military action after they fled to Taiwan, unless you count the 10 U-2 spy planes they used over the mainland, which were all shot down).
> People's Republic of China: Korean War, various border conflicts with Pakistan, India, invasion of Vietnam (yes, they invaded Vietnam).





twenty6 said:


> Technically there are more than 20 (it depends on how you define "dynasty"; some existed at the same time, others weren't founded by Han people, etc.):
> 夏，商，周（split into 东周and 西周, the latter of which is split into 春秋and 战国periods), 秦，汉(split into 西汉and 东汉, between which there is the 新潮), 三国(period with three separate kingdoms)， 西晋and东晋(the end of 东晋was the 十六国or Sixteen Kingdoms period), 南北, 隋，唐，五代十国(five dynasties ten kingdoms period),宋 （split into 北宋and 南宋, the latter of which existed as a rump state after the Mongol invasions)， 辽/西夏/金 existed at the same time, then 宋, 元, 明， and finally the 清.
> 
> In English romanization: Xia, Shang, Zhou (Spring/Autumn and Warring States periods), Qin, Han, Three Kingdoms, Jin, Sui, Tang, Five Dynasties Ten Kingdoms, Song, Yuan, Liao, Western Xia, Jin (not to be confused with the other Jin), Ming, and Qing.
> 
> Brief summary of all military actions during the dynasties (and beyond):
> Xia (possibly mythical): War between Huang Di and Yan Di, with Huang Di winning and establishing the Xia dynasty. Various petty conflicts within the imperial court.
> Shang: Rebellion that overthrew Xia, continuous conquest and expansion until another rebellion that overthrew the Shang to establish the Zhou.
> Zhou: Wars between feudal lords (called 诸侯) leads to the Spring/Autumn period (100+ vassal states) and the Warring States period (7 vassal states).
> Qin: Civil war against other 6 states, unification of China, rebellion against Qin.
> Han: Overthrew Qin, brief period of civil war, endless wars in the West with various central Asian countries and with the Xiong-Nu people.
> Three Kingdoms: Continuous civil war between local warlords leads to the establishment of the three kingdoms, which all hate each other and fight civil war on an even larger scale.
> Jin: The "Eight-King Panic" between the various local administrators appointed by the emperor. Leads to civil war and invasion of the Jin by Xiong-Nu.
> Sixteen Kingdoms: Continuous civil war.
> South-North: See above to Sixteen Kingdoms.
> Sui: Relative peace (still petty conflicts in various places).
> Tang: Expansion to the west.
> Five Dynasties Ten Kingdoms: Continuous civll war.
> (Song/Liao/Western Xia/Jin existed all during the Five Dynasties Ten Kingdoms period)
> Yuan: Mongol invasion. Invasion of Japan, Korea, Vietnam (all led by the Mongols, who used Chinese troops and generals).
> Ming: Rebellion that overthrew the Mongols. Short period of civil war. Even more expansion.
> Qing: Manchu invasion from north that overthrew the rebels that overthrew the Ming. Opium Wars, Revolution of 1911.
> 
> Republic of China (original): Civil war with warlords, World War II, civil war with CCP (no military action after they fled to Taiwan, unless you count the 10 U-2 spy planes they used over the mainland, which were all shot down).
> People's Republic of China: Korean War, various border conflicts with Pakistan, India, invasion of Vietnam (yes, they invaded Vietnam).


Thanks! You write that only two dynasties were non-ethnic Chinese, but I have found four: Liao, Jin, Yuan and Qing (Khitan, Jurchen, Mongol, Manchu).


----------



## twenty6

Ben Jamin said:


> You write that only two dynasties were non-ethnic Chinese, but I have found four: Liao, Jin, Yuan and Qing (Khitan, Jurchen, Mongol, Manchu).


True, but Liao and Jin are usually considered kingdoms (ever since Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of the Qin dynasty adopted the title "emperor" to make himself seem more impressive, "king" and "kingdom" were considered not-as-impressive-or-important as "emperor" and "empire": in fact, during some dynasties some court officials were called "king"), not full-fledged dynasties, since they were only part of the jigsaw puzzle that was the Five Dynasty Ten Kingdoms period. Some consider them to be dynasties, but others don't, and it's all very confusing. There is no exact criteria for defining "dynasty" in Chinese (though the common consensus seems to be that if the ruler of that country called it a dynasty, and if it was large enough, it's an official dynasty).


----------



## Ben Jamin

twenty6 said:


> True, but Liao and Jin are usually considered kingdoms (ever since Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of the Qin dynasty adopted the title "emperor" to make himself seem more impressive, "king" and "kingdom" were considered not-as-impressive-or-important as "emperor" and "empire": in fact, during some dynasties some court officials were called "king"), not full-fledged dynasties, since they were only part of the jigsaw puzzle that was the Five Dynasty Ten Kingdoms period. Some consider them to be dynasties, but others don't, and it's all very confusing. There is no exact criteria for defining "dynasty" in Chinese (though the common consensus seems to be that if the ruler of that country called it a dynasty, and if it was large enough, it's an official dynasty).


But the fact is that they ruled over large teritories belonging to the Chinese sphere, and populated at least partly by Chinese (Han?) speakers. Qualifying them as "empire" or "kingdom" is of secondary importance in my opinion.


----------



## henter

I am a Chinese boy said:


> 呵呵


A former editor of one of the biggest newspapers in China  suggests shooting down Pelosi’s plane after the mardy Pelosi announced  that  she would  be flying to Taiwan to show that she is in the tank for Taiwan, which is part of China just like mainland China.

  I'd venture to say that China would resort to using force if Pelosi were to  visit Taiwan like this. To my knowledge, China only consents to Pelosi's verbal support on this issue, say, it's okay for Pelosi to wax lyrical about America's duty to go to bat for Taiwan if needed. Yet it's a different situation if  Pelosi sets foot on Taiwan. That would be a declaration of war in the eyes of the Chinese.

It's worrisome that  Pelosi seems to be striving to do  something that would lead China and America engage in a military showdown. And that would also mean that China's leaders have no choice but to  carry water for Putin's Russia even in the teeth of opposition.  Suffice to say that Pelosi is going to be the tinderbox that triggers off the World War 3.


----------



## henter

By the by, Pelosi has been a China basher for years.  She also lit into China when Clinton was still the president. At the same time, she deigned to pander to BLM's supporters by taking a knee two years ago.  Go figure!


----------



## henter

twenty6 said:


> Technically there are more than 20 (it depends on how you define "dynasty"; some existed at the same time, others weren't founded by Han people, etc.):
> 夏，商，周（split into 东周and 西周, the latter of which is split into 春秋and 战国periods), 秦，汉(split into 西汉and 东汉, between which there is the 新潮), 三国(period with three separate kingdoms)， 西晋and东晋(the end of 东晋was the 十六国or Sixteen Kingdoms period), 南北, 隋，唐，五代十国(five dynasties ten kingdoms period),宋 （split into 北宋and 南宋, the latter of which existed as a rump state after the Mongol invasions)， 辽/西夏/金 existed at the same time, then 宋, 元, 明， and finally the 清.
> 
> In English romanization: Xia, Shang, Zhou (Spring/Autumn and Warring States periods), Qin, Han, Three Kingdoms, Jin, Sui, Tang, Five Dynasties Ten Kingdoms, Song, Yuan, Liao, Western Xia, Jin (not to be confused with the other Jin), Ming, and Qing.
> 
> Brief summary of all military actions during the dynasties (and beyond):
> Xia (possibly mythical): War between Huang Di and Yan Di, with Huang Di winning and establishing the Xia dynasty. Various petty conflicts within the imperial court.
> Shang: Rebellion that overthrew Xia, continuous conquest and expansion until another rebellion that overthrew the Shang to establish the Zhou.
> Zhou: Wars between feudal lords (called 诸侯) leads to the Spring/Autumn period (100+ vassal states) and the Warring States period (7 vassal states).
> Qin: Civil war against other 6 states, unification of China, rebellion against Qin.
> Han: Overthrew Qin, brief period of civil war, endless wars in the West with various central Asian countries and with the Xiong-Nu people.
> Three Kingdoms: Continuous civil war between local warlords leads to the establishment of the three kingdoms, which all hate each other and fight civil war on an even larger scale.
> Jin: The "Eight-King Panic" between the various local administrators appointed by the emperor. Leads to civil war and invasion of the Jin by Xiong-Nu.
> Sixteen Kingdoms: Continuous civil war.
> South-North: See above to Sixteen Kingdoms.
> Sui: Relative peace (still petty conflicts in various places).
> Tang: Expansion to the west.
> Five Dynasties Ten Kingdoms: Continuous civll war.
> (Song/Liao/Western Xia/Jin existed all during the Five Dynasties Ten Kingdoms period)
> Yuan: Mongol invasion. Invasion of Japan, Korea, Vietnam (all led by the Mongols, who used Chinese troops and generals).
> Ming: Rebellion that overthrew the Mongols. Short period of civil war. Even more expansion.
> Qing: Manchu invasion from north that overthrew the rebels that overthrew the Ming. Opium Wars, Revolution of 1911.
> 
> Republic of China (original): Civil war with warlords, World War II, civil war with CCP (no military action after they fled to Taiwan, unless you count the 10 U-2 spy planes they used over the mainland, which were all shot down).
> People's Republic of China: Korean War, various border conflicts with Pakistan, India, invasion of Vietnam (yes, they invaded Vietnam).


Most historians still argue that 夏 didn't exist.


----------



## Ben Jamin

henter said:


> A former editor of one of the biggest newspapers in China  suggests shooting down Pelosi’s plane after the mardy Pelosi announced  that  she would  be flying to Taiwan to show that she is in the tank for Taiwan, which is part of China just like mainland China.
> 
> I'd venture to say that China would resort to using force if Pelosi were to  visit Taiwan like this. To my knowledge, China only consents to Pelosi's verbal support on this issue, say, it's okay for Pelosi to wax lyrical about America's duty to go to bat for Taiwan if needed. Yet it's a different situation if  Pelosi sets foot on Taiwan. That would be a declaration of war in the eyes of the Chinese.
> 
> It's worrisome that  Pelosi seems to be striving to do  something that would lead China and America engage in a military showdown. And that would also mean that China's leaders have no choice but to  carry water for Putin's Russia even in the teeth of opposition.  Suffice to say that Pelosi is going to be the tinderbox that triggers off the World War 3.


Speaking exactly like Putin, Russia and China two Asian predators of the same kind.


----------



## bennymix

Ben Jamin said:


> Speaking exactly like Putin, Russia and China two Asian predators of the same kind.



Neither as deadly as the North American predator.

US & Allied Killed | Costs of War​https://watson.brown.edu › costs › human › military › k...

The number of United States troops who have died fighting the wars in Iraq and _Afghanistan_ had passed 7,000 at the end of 2019.
==
Afghan Civilians | Costs of War​https://watson.brown.edu › costsofwar › costs › human

About 241,000 people have been killed in the _Afghanistan_ and Pakistan war zone since 2001. More than 71,000 of those killed have been civilians. Key Findings.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Now, now bennymix. Russia and China are outlaws that have dedicated themselves to the proposition that might makes right. The United States would, of course, never assent to such a base philosophy. Washington is a benevolent power that works solely for the common good of all humanity and those who argue otherwise are obviously a ragtag mix of deranged Chomskyists, apologists for authoritarian régimes or xenophobic America haters. Can anyone seriously imagine the US or any NATO member illegally invading and occupying another sovereign state or funding authoritarian powers that commit war crimes or establish, say, illegal colonial outposts? Impossible! Unlike those shady foreigners, we are profoundly moral people.

As an aside, the reference to Russia as an "Asian predator" is intentional.


----------



## henter

Ben Jamin said:


> Speaking exactly like Putin, Russia and China two Asian predators of the same kind.


I don't know why would you mention Putin. I still side with Ukraine and don't shy away from doing down Russian aggression and Putin's sabre-ratting,  despite having taken flak from  some Chinese fellows for supporting  Ukraine. I'm not going to change this stance simply because we have an ornery  politician named Pelosi trying to antagonise China by visiting an island called Taiwan.  Tellingly, it's meant to roil Asia and create another crisis that no one wants to have in Asia. Plus, you are only pushing China towards Russia when Pelosi makes such preposterous moves. Typically, anti-American sentiment hots up in China in a situation in which swivel-eyed politicians like Pelosi say they would like to visit Taiwan. This is a serious issue for the Chinese, and it would be foolish for America to slur over it or simply dismiss it as propaganda. It's not; lots of Chinese young guns  are psyched to fight for China if Taiwan tries to secede from China. Combustible nationalists in China even can't wait to find China and America squabbling over Taiwan. Unlike me, they are partial to Putin.

I'm not kidding. Pelosi's decision to visit Taiwan will foment hatred against America while giving China a perfect excuse to stand up to Western nations with Russia, alas, on the grounds that Western nations support separatism. And it's no stretch to say that would be a prelude to a full-scale war, stoked by mounting nationalism in China. You Poles also fought against the Soviet Union, right? Remember the Katyn Massacre?

Pelosi is just another foreign oppressor for the Chinese.  The Chinese people won't have her taking Taiwan away from them.


----------



## henter

I think we have some friendly folks here from Russia as well. I respect them personally. I just can't bring myself to plump for  irredentism or revanchism that Putin holds dear.


----------



## henter

There are indications that China will use military force once the soft-headed Pelosi sets foot on Taiwan. A Chinese troop is said to be making preparations for the forthcoming military confrontation, according to Weibo, which is Chinese edition of Twitter." We are ready to bring the backslider down," it says. Other fervent  Chinese netizens have expressed support for the government while pegging Pelosi down as a cage-ratter or provocateur. "Taiwan is part of China. We will see off baddies like Pelosi."


----------



## henter

I also found an interesting message from someone claiming to be American. He told the Chinese  that "feel free to do anything to the old hag named Pelosi. We couldn't care less. " Former president Trump also came out waxing wroth at his nemesis Pelosi for trying to rile up China by visiting that island.  This is not the first time  that Trump has scolded Pelosi for being a gormless sort.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

henter said:


> There are indications that China will use military force once the soft-headed Pelosi sets foot on Taiwan. A Chinese troop is said to be making preparations for the forthcoming military confrontation, according to Weibo, which is Chinese edition of Twitter." We are ready to bring the backslider down," it says. Other fervent  Chinese netizens have expressed support for the government while pegging Pelosi down as a cage-ratter or provocateur. "Taiwan is part of China. We will see off baddies like Pelosi."


Of course the People's Republic of China will use force in defence of its vital interests as it sees them. Just as the Russians used force in the Ukraine or as the Americans have done countless times in Latin America and elsewhere. This is the sober reality of big power politics in the absence of an international arbiter that can enforce its decisions. The guff about international institutions and a new world order based on reason, economic exchanges and so forth was just that, guff. The reason why Palestinians live under the yoke of oppression or Greek Cypriots from Northern Cyprus are barred from returning to their homes is because they were (and are) unfortunate enough to be weaker than their adversaries. As vicious and vile as they are, at least the Chinese Communist Party leaders are direct about their intentions vis-à-vis Taiwan unlike the serially dishonest and morally reprehensible State Department.


----------



## bennymix

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Of course the People's Republic of China will use force in defence of its vital interests as it sees them. Just as the Russians used force in the Ukraine or as the Americans have done countless times in Latin America and elsewhere. This is the sober reality of big power politics in the absence of an international arbiter that can enforce its decisions. The guff about international institutions and a new world order based on reason, economic exchanges and so forth was just that, guff. The reason why Palestinians live under the yoke of oppression or Greek Cypriots from Northern Cyprus are barred from returning to their homes is because they were (and are) unfortunate enough to be weaker than their adversaries. As vicious and vile as they are, at least the Chinese Communist Party leaders are direct about their intentions vis-à-vis Taiwan unlike the serially dishonest and morally reprehensible State Department.



Before getting puffed up about Taiwan and defense of its integrity and nationhood, it's good the remember that the Kuomintang (KMT; Guomindang GMD), the nationalist party that lost the civil war to Mao, completely agreed that Taiwan was part of China.   The Kuomintang set itself up in Taiwan--displacing the locals--, hoping to return and reclaim the whole.   In other words, were the nationalists to defeat communists, they'd still be saying "There is one China."


----------



## henter

bennymix said:


> Before getting puffed up about Taiwan and defense of its integrity and nationhood, it's good the remember that the Kuomintang (KMT; Guomindang GMD), the nationalist party that lost the civil war to Mao, completely agreed that Taiwan was part of China.   The Kuomintang set itself up in Taiwan--displacing the locals--, hoping to return and reclaim the whole.   In other word, were the nationalists to defeat communists, they'd still be saying "There is one China."


The so-called  locals there were also Chinese; they speak the same language as the people living in Fujian, which happens to be a province adjacent to that island. Besides, you can find Fujian people even in Singapore and Malaysia. Faced with poverty and Japan's invasion,  lots of people living in Fujian had to leave china for Singapore to seek out opportunities during the World War 2.

The KMT  also fled to Taiwan after being outgunned by Chairman Mao's troops, after which Chiang Kai-shek's son Chiang Ching-kuo was given the job of pepping up Taiwan's economy. To that end,  Chiang Ching-kuo reportedly took a page from Mao's playbook, by which I mean the need to push for land reforms. He also paid heed to industrialization and foreign investment, particularly from America. As a result, by the mid-1980s  it had become one of the so-called Asian Tigers , whereas the Chinese mainland was lagging behind in terms of economic development. Actually, Taiwanese companies started investing in mainland in droves in the 90s, making bumper profits .


----------



## henter

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Of course the People's Republic of China will use force in defence of its vital interests as it sees them. Just as the Russians used force in the Ukraine or as the Americans have done countless times in Latin America and elsewhere. This is the sober reality of big power politics in the absence of an international arbiter that can enforce its decisions. The guff about international institutions and a new world order based on reason, economic exchanges and so forth was just that, guff. The reason why Palestinians live under the yoke of oppression or Greek Cypriots from Northern Cyprus are barred from returning to their homes is because they were (and are) unfortunate enough to be weaker than their adversaries. As vicious and vile as they are, at least the Chinese Communist Party leaders are direct about their intentions vis-à-vis Taiwan unlike the serially dishonest and morally reprehensible State Department.


I'm petrified by the fact that Pelosi is still adamant that she'd like to visit Taiwan , in spite of Biden's protestations. A columnist at the New York Times also wrote an article decrying Pelosi's bolshiness, suggesting that she is out on a limb. Even a China basher told Fox News that China is not joshing when it says it will let America pay a price if Pelosi turns up in Taiwan.

How could she be such stupid? Does she want to incite a war?  I think commoners like us would'n want to live in a world beset by military conflicts. She's an old geezer, not me. I don't want to go through a war. She would do well not to irk China by visiting that island, which is part of China no matter what she thinks. Pelosi doesn't know anything about our nation's history. And her husband is said to have made a bundle on some business deals with his wife's help.


----------



## Trisia

Serious question: why would the visit of one person incite a full-scale war? From over here it just seems as though the Chinese government has (undeniably) been long preparing for conflict and is looking for a pretext to start an invasion.

Also, while traditionally Romanians are very sensitive about what historically belongs to a country and what doesn't, "solving" conflicts like this is absolutely not different from what's happening in another part of the world, where you seem to rightfully support the victims. Now imagine the invaders there have been taught from a very young age and are absolutely certain that historically that place is theirs and they have a right to it, and now if they need to pulverise the locals, who happen to be largely their own flesh and blood, speaking much the same language and sharing their history, but simply wish to live differently, then so be it, the locals are disposable. And then go back to your situation.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

The Chinese authorities are extremely sensititive about the territorial integrity of their country, presumably for historical reasons (the Brits, Japanese and others imposed a series of unequal treaties and a "century of humiliation" on them which still rankle).

When Thatcher visited Beijing in 1984 in an attempt to negotiate the status of Hong Kong, the Chinese made it perfectly clear how things were expected to go:



> ''He [Deng Xiaoping] said that the Chinese could walk in and take Hong Kong back later today if they wanted to,'' says Lady Thatcher. ''I retorted that they could indeed do so; I could not stop them. But this would bring about Hong Kong's collapse. The world would then see what followed a change from British to Chinese rule.''



Thatcher reveals Deng's threat to seize Hong Kong in a day

Beijing will launch a full-scale war over Taiwan if it fees that its interests are seriously threatened; that is not in doubt. There's nothing surprising about this; the Americans were willing to plunge the world into nuclear oblivion to stop hostile missiles being installed in their backyard (Cuba). They're still punishing the Cubans for their audacity via an embargo to this day. This is how superpowers/global Godfathers behave. If the fate of Hong Kong is any indication, the CCP will carry out retribution whenever they decide to retake control of Taiwan. We do not live in a nice, reasonable world where states hash out their fundamental differences in arbitration. Would that we did.


----------



## apmoy70

As the modern, established in 1830, Kingdom of Greece, one could argue that the expansion of the country northward during the First Balkan War, was an invasion of the Ottoman Empire.
Just like the earlier, unsuccessful (for the Greeks) War of 1897 was an invasion of the Ottoman Empire by the Kingdom of Greece.
Or the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-22, although with complicated history and post-WWI allied machinations, it again was technically an invasion of the Turkish State established after the abdication of the Sultan and the Young Turk Revolution, by the Entente allies of WWI, including the Kingdom of Greece.

An unusual _invasion_ happened in 1925:
A Greek sentry at the Greco-Bulgarian border, running after his dog which had strayed to Bulgaria, followed it and accidentally crossed the border, and was shot and killed by the Bulgarian sentries.
The Greek dictatorial government of Gen. Theodoros Pangalos responded with rage and issued an ultimatum demanding the compensation of the family of the killed soldier and the punishment of the perpetrators; naturally the ultimatum was not accepted by the Bulgarian side, thus, Gen. Pangalos ordered Greek troops to invade Bulgaria, which they did, and after short skirmishes, captured and occupied the Bulgarian town of Petrich, which is near the border.
Bulgaria appealed to the League of Nations and military attachés were despatched from the UK, France & Italy to resolve the issue. The two sides eventually reached an agreement, by which, Greece had to abandon the Bulgarian soil (which they did) and compensate the Bulgarian State for the disproportionate reaction (which they did), while Bulgaria had to compensate the sentry's family (which they did).
This incident has been known as _The invasion of the Stray Dog_ and we would laugh over it, if it hadn't claimed the lives of ~200 soldiers on both sides.


----------



## henter

Trisia said:


> Serious question: why would the visit of one person incite a full-scale war? From over here it just seems as though the Chinese government has (undeniably) been long preparing for conflict and is looking for a pretext to start an invasion.
> 
> Also, while traditionally Romanians are very sensitive about what historically belongs to a country and what doesn't, "solving" conflicts like this is absolutely not different from what's happening in another part of the world, where you seem to rightfully support the victims. Now imagine the invaders there have been taught from a very young age and are absolutely certain that historically that place is theirs and they have a right to it, and now if they need to pulverise the locals, who happen to be largely their own flesh and blood, speaking much the same language and sharing their history, but simply wish to live differently, then so be it, the locals are disposable. And then go back to your situation.


A perfect explanation would be that Pelosi is  an elected official and House Speaker. Rumor has it she still has plans to run for reelection, despite being an old woman. From China's perspective, you are not allowed to visit Taiwan when you are still one of the most influential figures in the Democratic Party like Pelosi.  Sometimes China chooses to blink at the fact that some retired politicians from America or Japan also visit Taiwan, albeit reluctantly. I'm not saying China will countenance to such visits; it just tries to play it down if they are retired politicians.

Not this time.  Pelosi seems to be trying to get China's goat deliberately.  A Taiwanese newspaper said  Pelosi has plans to arrive in Taiwan tomorrow and will hold talks with local officials there.  I don't know if it's true since this newspaper is keen on cranking out rumors with gusto. This newspaper is resentful of China to boot.

I'd hate to say this. As a mainlander , I have no choice but to get behind my government if Taiwan and Pelosi balk at recognizing our sovereignty over Taiwan. This is akin to a war for us.  I don't hold grudges against Taiwanese; I even watch a TV show produced by a Taiwanese channel in fits and starts.  And I have had a chance to talk to some folks from Taiwan online;  some of them are friendly. Thus, I'd hope that we can resolve conflicts peacefully. For my part, they are also my  Chinese fellows. That's why I take offence at Pelosi and her efforts to rock the boat. She's selfish.


----------



## merquiades

If Nancy Pelosi has decided she wishes to visit Taïwan, that's her prerogative. She's free to do as she wants. Bon voyage!  I hope she has a good productive visit there.  If she decides to stay there forever, that would also be fantastic.


----------



## bennymix

Merq, beyond Pelosi's 'prerogative' or right, the fact is that the US (prominent political figures) has been ginning up for heightened conflict with China for at least a couple years now.   This, besides escalating to a 'cold war' with Russia (which includes a hot war in the Ukraine).   The US and allies, as some have said are ready to carry on the war to the last Ukrainian (because the main goal now is to weaken Russia and its influence in Europe). 

Visits by leaders to foreign places are maybe trivial in a sense.   But they are symbolic.  As you likely know, Taiwan is like a handy US aircraft carrier stationed just off the shores of China;  so I guess the message is "We're going to enhance the war capabilities of Taiwan, which already has a huge US financed military."

Here are some numbers:
U.S. Military Support for Taiwan: What's Changed Under Trump?​https://www.cfr.org › in-brief › us-military-support-tai...
Apr 3, 2019 — Trump has announced two major _military_ sales to _Taiwan_. The first, approved in June 2017, was worth $1.4 billion and included advanced missiles ...
===

Document reveals $14 billion backlog of US defense transfers ...
https://www.defensenews.com › pentagon › 2022/04/14
Apr 14, 2022 — Another bill, introduced by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., would authorize $3 billion in _Taiwanese military aid_ annually. The bill would place more ...
===================================
{benny:}
The US has decaying infrastructure and schools in some areas are in bad shape.  A billion or two would go a long way to start addressing homegrown problems.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

bennymix said:


> The US has decaying infrastructure and schools in some areas are in bad shape.  A billion or two would go a long way to start addressing homegrown problems.


The military-industrial complex has captured the state (as Eisenhower warned about) and some of the most important victims of this are working-class Americans themselves. It's the working class that fights America's wars, has to do without health insurance and deals up close and personal with crumbling infrastructure and decaying inner cities.



			
				Dwight D. Eisenhower said:
			
		

> Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.



Chance for Peace speech - Wikipedia

Noble ideals which, of course, Beltway policymakers have completely cast aside in favour of more than 700 military bases dotted around the world, an annual military budget greater than any imperial power in history and an army at war with great regularity over the past half-century.


----------



## merquiades

@bennymix  Yes, yes and yes. You are right and I am not that daft. I subscribe to everything you say, though I find it revolting to put that ugly puzzle together.  There is some unfortunate parallielism between Russia/the Ukraine and China/Taïwan that I don't like one bit. I wish America would go back to isolationism and stop its meddling on other continents. I can see the writing on the wall and thought Romsfeld, Albright and Powell had moved onto another world.

Still on the first level you can't stop politicians from travelling to Taïwan or anywhere else. They're going round the world every day.  Ministers and congressmen and magistrates turn up everywhere.
Should China try to control who goes to Taïwan the list of visitors will get longer and longer from every country.


----------



## bennymix

Pedro y La Torre said:


> The military-industrial complex has captured the state (as Eisenhower warned about) and some of the most important victims of this are working-class Americans themselves. It's the working class that fights America's wars, has to do without health insurance and deals up close and personal with crumbling infrastructure and decaying inner cities.
> 
> 
> 
> Chance for Peace speech - Wikipedia
> 
> Noble ideals which, of course, Beltway policymakers have completely cast aside in favour of more than 700 military bases dotted around the world, an annual military budget greater than any imperial power in history and an army at war with great regularity over the past half-century.



The US has 4% of the world's population and spends 40% of the total of the world's military spending.  I believe the figure is something like 750 billion/yr?


----------



## henter

I have a feeling that it's more than a drama . China takes Pelosi's visit to Taiwan seriously. You know it's also a perfect way to burnish your reputation as the defender of national unity in China. Otherwise, mainland China even runs the risk of drawing ire from mainlanders for being craven. That's something you wouldn't expect China to do at least on this issue. Lots of mainlanders seem willing to fight for China if Pelosi wants to sneer at China in this way. 

You can find lots of  vitriolic comments against Pelosi on Chinese websites. They all have the same message: it's time to wrest control of Taiwan from the DDP, which is the ruling party of Taiwan; Taiwan also a pro-China party . And  some even thank Pelosi for giving mainland China this opportunity by visiting Taiwan.

"We will be reunited  thanks to Pelosi,"


----------



## merquiades

Taïwan will unite with China only if that's what the Taiwanese people decide they want. Until then there will fortunately be two countries.


----------



## henter

I have never seen a real gun in my life.  Pelosi's visit to Taiwan is going to change this. We are going to be joining a war against a crank or cad named Pelosi. You started it, Pelosi

Transformers, attack! 轰隆隆,轰隆隆.


----------



## merquiades

You are giving far far too much importance to that woman.


----------



## henter

Well, some local residents there would be delighted to be unite with mainland China, not those members of the ruling party DDP. The KMT, the opposition party, is ambivalent. Its members only claim that they are opposed to the DDP's intention to call mainland China's bluff.


----------



## henter

Could be. We are watching her movements closely in China. You know it could be a historic moment. More than one Taiwanese newspaper says she will arrive in Taiwan today.  I also can't figure out how would China react to this. A former editor of a national newspaper suggested shooting her plane down.


----------



## merquiades

Well, to make that happen the pro-China party just has to convince a majority to go along with it. That's how after decades BREXIT finally won out in Britain.  You need cleat majorities. If China is seen as belligerant it won't do the pro-China. If they wanna control who visits Taïwan, that won't go over well either.

Nancy Pelosi is an 82 year old w oman and temporary head of one branch of congress. She takes many trips.  She saw the pope, went to Israel, notably she intervened  in Kiev in the Ukraine, now maybe Taiwan and neighboring countries too. She'll come and go like always. Don't get worked up over this woman.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

There is no good side here. The United States government is behaving in its usual outlandish way (and talking out of both sides of its mouth) when confronted with a peer threat without so much as a thought for those poor souls who will suffer because of its belligerent militarism, and the Chinese Communist Party is made up of authoritarian thugs that jail, brainwash and,  if need be, murder opponents and are eager to establish their own version of the Monroe Doctrine in East Asia. A plague on both their houses.


----------



## henter

Chinese state media say the plane carrying  Pelosi is heading towards Taiwan. Guys, I think we are going to witness the emergence of World War 3.  Russia will be the only beneficiary of the upcoming military dust-up.  Ukraine will be the victim since China has no choice but to team up with  Russia as Western nations gang up on them.  Other Asian nations also have to pick sides, , inasmuch as both China and America need support in this war. I think Iran will form alliances with China and Russia; Japan and Australia will cast their  lot with America. Other small nations in Asia will find themselves caught up in an awkward situation, say, Indonesia. It's also hard to predict what would India do.

  I wish I were wrong about the possibility of seeing the arrival of a potential war in Asia. Yet I truly think Pelosi's decision to visit Taiwan will change everything.  At the very least, there is a case to be made that it's going to be a throwback to Cold War. Francis Fukuyama said history ended with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. It turns out to be he's wide of the mark. History simply repeats itself again and again.

   World War 3 is coming soon , brought to you by Pelosi.

  Indeed, it's still not to late for people to stop the rot. All Pelosi has to do is turn her plane back. That will save our earth.

  Lord, please show mercy and save us. We don't need airheads like  Pelosi ruining our life.  Could it be Pelosi's mind has been brainwashed by bellicose aliens wanting to destroy our planet? Her body must have a surly alien living inside.

  Arghhh! I never would have guessed the most powerful nations on earth could bring us back to the Middle Age again. I thought the war like World War 2 could only be found in movies.


----------



## henter

I may be talking like a worry wart.  I'm scared.  Asia is going to have a war. Nooooooo.  Take me to Sweden.  I could pretend to be an asylum-seeker there.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

China is unlikely to invade Taiwan solely over the visit of a leader. For the moment, this is posturing to send Washington a stern message. Chill.


----------



## henter

Hope so. I happen to be reading related articles on a Chinese website. It has been confirmed that Pelosi is on her way to Taiwan.


----------



## bennymix

henter said:


> Hope so. I happen to be reading related articles on a Chinese website. It has been confirmed that Pelosi is on her way to Taiwan.



I think they will indicate extreme displeasure, not necessarily shooting anything.  The previous Speaker went to Taiwan, years back.   That said, Pelosi is militarist, and the beat from the right in the US is "Let's step up the conflict with China."   She's, so to say, stealing their thunder.
      US Democrats find such moves desirable, even necessary, because of the "Dems are spineless" charge that never goes away.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

On foreign policy there's basically no difference whatsoever between the Democratic and Republican leaderships. The Republicans are a little more zealous in beating the "for my part, I am convinced Carthage must be destroyed" drum whenever possible enemies are zeroed in on but that's about it. The fear put about by some that America might retreat into isolationism is a sick joke. Even Trumpists (supposedly leery of foreign entanglements) are convinced that war, war is preferable to jaw, jaw.


----------



## bennymix

Pedro y La Torre said:


> On foreign policy there's basically no difference whatsoever between the Democratic and Republican leaderships. The Republicans are a little more zealous in beating the "for my part, I am convinced Carthage must be destroyed" drum whenever possible enemies are zeroed in on but that's about it. The fear put about by some that America might retreat into isolationism is a sick joke. Even Trumpists are convinced that war, war is preferable to jaw, jaw.



I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the "Dems are spineless" thing goes back a long way.  Some Republican nutbars around 1950 came up with "You [Dems] lost China!"  the reason being the softness of the commie f*gs in the State department.  The "loss" of China was a *big* item.  {Because the Americans--as in Afghanistan-- believed that their yes-men (KMT) on the payroll, were, as they (KMT) proclaimed, strong and widely loved.}


----------



## bennymix

> Pelosi lands in Taiwan, defying Chinese warnings of forceful response​The House speaker’s visit is intended to show support for the island in the face of threats from Beijing, which has vowed severe consequences that the Biden administration fears could trigger a crisis.
> By Lily Kuo5 minutes ago


----------



## Fernando

henter said:


> Hope so. I happen to be reading related articles on a Chinese website. It has been confirmed that Pelosi is on her way to Taiwan.


If China has a standard stance (as any other nation would be expected to do) it would:

- Issue a formal protest to USA (I understand you do not have an embassador in ROC).
Maybe:
- Call its embassador in USA.
- Cancel a couple of profitable contracts for US companies.
- Cancel diplomatic contacts altogether.
- A couple of China fighters would fly close to ROC waters.

Any other answer would be an overreation AND stupid. 

My own country does not pass from step one above when British royals or a nuclear submarine visit Gibraltar (which is a British colony in Spain, much the same as Hong Kong was).


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Fernando said:


> Any other answer would be an overreation AND stupid.


They're going to conduct live fire exercises and surround Taiwan while doing it (including exercises within Taiwan's territorial waters, apparently) so Beijing has already gone beyond that. Still, you can't just launch a naval invasion on a dime. Even Hitler quickly dropped any thoughts of invading England by sea given the massive costs/risks involved. If China invades, it won't be tomorrow.

Then there's this (perhaps relevant, perhaps not):

China's final warning - Wikipedia


----------



## Bonjules

Thing is we can speculate all day long about what is going to come out of this but nobody knows for sure.
S''it happens, more so in a world already on edge with multiple crises.
Must feel great to a young person today to have to live in a place run by an assortment of foolish gamblers.


----------



## henter

Fernando said:


> China has issued a statement inveighing against America's refusal to cleave to One-China policy-that is to say, China thinks Pelosi represents America.  Other than that, China will be holding drills in the next few days.


Lots of Chinese netizens, dismayed by the fact that China didn't even try to intercept that old woman's plane last night, are waiting for the Chinese military to flex its muscles today. Pelosi is meeting with the so-called president of Taiwan Tsai Ing-wen at 10.30am, according to Chinese media.  Pelosi is not leaving Taiwan until this afternoon.

  Be frankly, we thought China would get tough on Pelosi. A lot of people in China had hoped that China's own fighter jets would try to repel her plane even it's a symbolic move. It did not.

 I really don't know what to say. I don't want a degenerate like  Pelosi creating a regional crisis in Asia. We truly need peace in Asia. Having said that, I'm still incandescent with rage. She's the most ugly woman you could find on earth. Trump would agree with me in this context.


----------



## henter

China has issued a statement inveighing against America's refusal to abide by One-China policy-that is to say, China still argues that Pelosi represents America. On top of that, China will be holding drills  nationwide in the next few days.

  Speaking to MSNBC, Edward Luce, a columnist at the Financial Times,  said America is walking a tightrope.


----------



## Fernando

Pedro y La Torre said:


> They're going to conduct live fire exercises and surround Taiwan while doing it (including exercises within Taiwan's territorial waters, apparently) so Beijing has already gone beyond that. Still, you can't just launch a naval invasion on a dime. Even Hitler quickly dropped any thoughts of invading England by sea given the massive costs/risks involved. If China invades, it won't be tomorrow.


Of course, you are completely reasonable. Let us hope we will do not make the same mistake we did with Putin.


Pedro y La Torre said:


> Then there's this (perhaps relevant, perhaps not):
> 
> China's final warning - Wikipedia


Yes, international relations are full of 'ultimatums' and 'last opportunities'. In August 1918 they waited just for another one.


----------



## bennymix

Bonjules said:


> Thing is we can speculate all day long about what is going to come out of this but nobody knows for sure.
> S''it happens, more so in a world already on edge with multiple crises.
> Must feel great to a young person today to have to live in a place run by an assortment of foolish gamblers.



There have always been foolish gamblers, but today, several have a finger on a nuclear button.


----------



## Fernando

henter said:


> We truly need peace in Asia.


Intercepting representatives of a power with fighters is hardly a good movement to search for peace.

I still do not get why this is very different from Gringrich's visit in the 90s.


henter said:


> She's the most ugly woman you could find on earth. Trump would agree with me in this context.


Well, I think that that is something we can all agree with, regardless of gender, race or political stance. I think it is a basis for agreement.


----------



## henter

China: Pelosi, you are surrounded. Drop the stick.
  Pelosi: Dream on. A witch like me can't fly without a stick. Catch me if you can.
  Tiktok: We are streaming the whole scene. No ads.
  Daniel Silva:I'm going to write a novel based on this.
  Netflix:Awesome. We will make a drama based on your novel. Could you tell me the name of your novel.
  Daniel Silva: The Foxy Woman.
  Henter:How about the woman with the longest tail?
  Pelosi: I need to buy a long dress to hide my tail. My scheming husband  is going to pay for it.  He is no slouch when it comes to fleecing people and making illicit financial gains.
  Her Husband: I just bought one for you, dear. It's made in China.


----------



## bennymix

henter said:


> Lots of Chinese netizens, dismayed by the fact that China didn't even try to intercept that old woman's plane last night, are waiting for the Chinese military to flex its muscles today. Pelosi is meeting with the so-called president of Taiwan Tsai Ing-wen at 10.30am, according to Chinese media.  Pelosi is not leaving Taiwan until this afternoon.
> 
> Be frankly, we thought China would get tough on Pelosi. A lot of people in China had hoped that China's own fighter jets would try to repel her plane even it's a symbolic move. It did not.
> 
> I really don't know what to say. I don't want a degenerate like  Pelosi creating a regional crisis in Asia. We truly need peace in Asia. Having said that, I'm still incandescent with rage. She's the most ugly woman you could find on earth. Trump would agree with me in this context.


 
You know that the comments on appearances, esp. of older people, detract from your posts; their convincingness.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Bonjules said:


> Thing is we can speculate all day long about what is going to come out of this but nobody knows for sure.
> S''it happens, more so in a world already on edge with multiple crises.
> Must feel great to a young person today to have to live in a place run by an assortment of foolish gamblers.



It was no different in the past. The only constant is that change is illusory.  States talk like liberal internationalists and behave like Bismarck. The only "good guys" are non-state actors like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. And what remains of the UN. Otherwise it's just different strains of amorality. For example, Saudi Arabia has turned the Yemen into possibly the worst humanitarian disaster in world. Millions of children are starving. Many thousands are dying. The UK is a key ally of this criminal regime. A large percentage of UK weapons sales go to Riyadh. The UK trains and collaborates with the Saudi military. In other words, Britain is directly responsible for mass murder. Guess which war dominates the headlines in the UK? The one they're directly involved in and, by dint of that involvement, facilitating vast crimes against humanity? Of course not.

It is impossible to look at the state of international relations and be anything but deeply cynical. As the Athenians said to the Melians over 2000 years ago via Thucydides, "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".


----------



## Fernando

bennymix said:


> You know that the comments on appearances, esp. of older people, detract from your posts; their convincingness.


So, is it out of the limits (as a random example) to laugh of the orange hair of 76-y-old people? Noted.


----------



## merquiades

We must not forget that Pelosi is welcome in Taiwan. All reports show that the president, the government and the Taiwanese people are besides themselves with glee.

Peking is not going to seduce the Taiwanese with their war games and harsh discourse. They need to show them why they should want to be Chinese.  Taiwan has been in the western sphere since 1949. They didn't go through Communism and their mindset is different. They don't want to be China.  At the moment, Pelosi gets cheers, not Xi Jinping.

There are thousands of westerners in Taiwan, both visitors and residents. Pelosi wasn't alone on her plane either.  She is just one woman of many. So she supports Taïwan. She's far from the only one.
China has a lot of work to do in Taiwan. We cannot shout "one China" and hope to take the island with the snap of a finger.  China must merit Taiwan's interest and today it has pushed Taiwan further away. If that were Pelosi's intention then she was indeed successful.
The terrible things happening in Hong Kong aren't going to sway the Taiwanese opinion toward China either.  They'd have done better staying British.


----------



## merquiades

There are polls asking the Taiwanese if they feel Taiwanese, Chinese or both.  Taiwanese only has been steadily gaining in popularity.  Around 60% when you can choose both. 89% when you have to choose between Taiwanese and Chinese.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

There are interesting parallels with the Ukraine. For centuries, Ukrainians were known as "Little Russians" (Malorussians) and this identity was, so it seems, very popular among the local elites and the bourgeoisie. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't appear to even recognize a "Ukrainian" identity at all. "Little Russians" were pretty much smashed after the October Revolution and never made a comeback. Swathes of Russian-speaking lands were, furthermore, added to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic over time and a local Ukrainian identity developed but this was generally integrated into a pan-Soviet identity save in the western part of the country. With political changes after the fall of the USSR, we now see Russian and Ukrainian national identities that are radically opposed to each other (despite their shared ancient origins) and a similar phenomenon appears to be in progress in Taiwan.

What does all that mean? A bit like Descartes' cogito, when nations "think" therefore they "are". History is not a reliable indicator as to the strength of an identity. It can crop up in very little time and become resilient (Palestine might serve as another example). This will be a thorny problem for both the Russians and the Chinese mainlanders going forward.


----------



## merquiades

Yes, I've often noticed the striking parallelism between Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan.
Russia and China are destined to become partners.  Claims to territory based on historical links or geography is not a popular idea in the western world today and pretty much rejected outright.  That even goes for places like Gibraltar and the Falklands/Malvinas.


----------



## henter

I have no intention to put elderly people down. That Pelosi is an exception. I don't regret throwing shade at her or slagging her off. I don't want to dissemble my national identity. I'm Chinese. Therefore, I think I have the duty to speak for China and savage her for trying to sow the seeds of division between Chinese mainland and that island called Taiwan, which is and will be part of China forever.

  For all Taiwanese secessionists' strenuous efforts to secede from China and strident criticisms of One-China policy, there is no denying that Taiwan is part of China.  Even Taiwanese TV networks have produced dramas featuring Chinese history and ancient fairy tales. The so-called Greens have two TV networks in Taiwan, both of which support the ruling DDP. Yet the two networks have produced dramas that tell TV viewers how the Qing dynasty ruled this island called Taiwan, particularly a story featuring Jiaqing Emperor and his adventure in Taiwan. Beyond that, Tsai Ing-wen herself once said she's Chinese.

 Chinese is my native language , so I'd like to dwell on it in Chinese if you guys don't mind.  I take exception to what merquiades said here.  So If he also speaks Chinese, then I'd like to reason with him  in Chinese. If he doesn't know anything about Chinese culture or doesn't  even speak Chinese, then he would be well advised to study Chinese first before banging on about the need for a shifty politician like Pelosi to protect that island.  

  I'm told that her husband stands accused of making fistful of money with her wife's help. Fox News and the Newe York Times all claim that Pelosi has furnished her husband with investing tips related to chip stocks. And Taiwan's TSMC  happens to be the biggest chip-maker.  Another game-changer in this field is ASML.


----------



## zhg

merquiades said:


> Claims to territory based on historical links or geography is not a popular idea in the western world today and pretty much rejected outright.


There is nothing to claim here. It is a simple fact that Taiwan IS a part of China.

The One China policy refers to a United States policy of strategic ambiguity regarding Taiwan. It "acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that *Taiwan is a part of China*" and "does not challenge that position."(Wiki)


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

The problem for you, henter, is that Englishmen in the American colonies were British until they weren't. The notion that English colonists constituted a separate nation was a laughable thesis in 1700. It was considerably less amusing by 1800 and today you'd be seen as a crackpot if you maintained that Americans and Britons were one nation.

Can the Chinese Communist Party compel loyalty in Taiwan given all that has occurred since 1949? Who knows? How many people are you willing to kill to achieve it is also the question that Putin had to answer, and the final result is not yet in.


----------



## henter

zhg said:


> There is nothing to claim here. It is a simple fact that Taiwan IS a part of China.
> 
> The One China policy refers to a United States policy of strategic ambiguity regarding Taiwan. It "acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that *Taiwan is a part of China*" and "does not challenge that position."(Wiki)





Pedro y La Torre said:


> The problem for you henter is that Englishmen in the American colonies were British until they weren't. The notion that English colonists constituted a separate nation was a laughable thesis in 1700. It was considerably less amusing by 1800 and today you'd be seen as a crackpot if you maintained that Americans and Britons were one nation.
> 
> That's circumstances for you. Can the Chinese Communist Party compel loyalty in Taiwan? Who knows? How many people are you willing to kill to achieve it is also the question that Putin had to answer, and the final result is not yet in.


I also raise an objection to what Putin is doing in Ukraine.  Some of my Chinese fellows have scolded me for not siding with Russia as well.  Like it or lump it, Taiwan is not Ukraine. The KMT fled to that island after Mao's troops vanquished Chiang Kai-shek's troops. Chiang Kai-shek himself insisted that Taiwan is part of China just like mainland China when he was still alive. He was even thinking about dispatching his troops to mainland China to beat out Mao's troops. To his consternation, even his American consultants tried to dissuade him from taking risks.  In effect,  Chiang Kai-shek  even rationalized his futile attempts to make a comeback by suppressing the  local dissidents scornful of him. Some dissidents  formed the party called  the DDP in Taiwan after the KMT decided to go easy on them.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

As a wise man once said, that was then and this is now. The Taiwanese themselves will decide if they are Chinese like everyone else or not. The experience of Hong Kong would hardly entice people to plump for an SAR model within the People's Republic of China. Of course, if mainland China decides to compel Taiwan by force, all bets are off.


----------



## merquiades

zhg said:


> There is nothing to claim here. It is a simple fact that Taiwan IS a part of China.
> 
> The One China policy refers to a United States policy of strategic ambiguity regarding Taiwan. It "acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that *Taiwan is a part of China*" and "does not challenge that position."(Wiki)


It may have been a simple fact in 1949 but that is no longer the case. 73 years is a long time, a lifetime for most people. There are many differences nowadays between the two countries and more are likely to develop.

The people living in Taiwan will decide what their future will be, whether that is unification or a lasting break with mainland China.


----------



## Bonjules

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Can the Chinese Communist Party compel loyalty in Taiwan given all that has occurred since 1949? Who knows? How many people are you willing to kill to achieve it is also the question that Putin had to answer, and the final result is not yet in.


The similarities and differences are interesting indeed. In both cases it seems to me that the leaders would tolerate/have tolerated the development of a separate identity as long as they could maintain the idea and appearance of the 'breakaway part' recognizing and respecting the historico-cultural ties and not actively opposing or denying them.
Never under-estimate the 'thymotic sensibilities' of statesmen/leaders, especially of the ones that feel insecure to begin with
(China though looks a lot more confident and self-assured these days). Their disregard probably has triggered as much conflict
historically as plain/brute power considerations; aspirations of empire or past glory thrive when you feel disregarded, brushed aside (not 'respected') or outright threatened.
The Ukrainian leadership was of course keenly aware of that as they were aware of the probable consequences (they were quite obvious, weren't they) and chose to play up the game nonetheless (the Taiwanese seem to be a little more cautious, but apparently not much).


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Unfortunately for the PRC, there's no Crimea-type area that is eager to return to the motherland, which they could then utilize as a base for further operations. It makes perfect sense that the PRC is leery of engaging in a seaborne invasion of Taiwan for it would probably end in disaster (then again, like the old Soviet Union, China can afford to sustain heavy casualties).

The Chinese authorities appear to have been caught off-guard by this; there were pictures doing the rounds yesterday of Chinese tanks driving along beaches on the shore opposite Taiwan and, later, driving into the sea. An obvious (and pretty stupid) publicity stunt.


----------



## zhg

merquiades said:


> It may have been a simple fact in 1949 but that is no longer the case. 73 years is a long time, a lifetime for most people. There are many differences nowadays between the two countries and more are likely to develop.
> 
> The people living in Taiwan will decide what their future will be, whether that is unification or a lasting break with mainland China.


This is still the case nowadays. Any country that has an established relation with PRC or ROC, including the US, has agreed that "there is only one China in the world, and Taiwan is a part of China".

Because Taiwan is a part of China, the people living in Taiwan could not decide the future of the Island alone. Its fate remains to be determined by all the Chinese people together from both sides of the Strait. Believe it or not the reunification will happen, it is only a matter of how and when.


----------



## bennymix

merquiades said:


> We must not forget that Pelosi is welcome in Taiwan. All reports show that the president, the government and the Taiwanese people are besides themselves with glee.
> 
> Peking is not going to seduce the Taiwanese with their war games and harsh discourse. They need to show them why they should want to be Chinese.  Taiwan has been in the western sphere since 1949. They didn't go through Communism and their mindset is different. They don't want to be China.  At the moment, Pelosi gets cheers, not Xi Jinping.
> 
> There are thousands of westerners in Taiwan, both visitors and residents. Pelosi wasn't alone on her plane either.  She is just one woman of many. So she supports Taïwan. She's far from the only one.
> China has a lot of work to do in Taiwan. We cannot shout "one China" and hope to take the island with the snap of a finger.  China must merit Taiwan's interest and today it has pushed Taiwan further away. If that were Pelosi's intention then she was indeed successful.
> The terrible things happening in Hong Kong aren't going to sway the Taiwanese opinion toward China either.  They'd have done better staying British.



I don't think China could enter the beauty contest you propose--unless the US flag starts to fly over Beijing.
Taiwan is subsidized and militarized by continuing billions of US aid. Two billion a year has just been proposed.  U.S. Republicans want billions for Taiwan military aid to counter China   For a population a bit more than New York State's.  

There are wealthy private corporations and and a wealthy pro-US elite, since the 1950s.   Indeed this elite governed by military dictatorship, KMT (US backed) till around 1990, when some sort of democratization began.   If you want an analogy, consider S. Vietnam, under Diem around 1960. He was supported and his army bankrolled by the US.   So realisticaly was there going to be a fair contest as you describe where the people vote Diem or Ho chi minh?

Consider British outposts like Falkland's or Gibraltar.  Could Argentina or Spain (respectively) woo them back?

Taiwan is like a US aircraft carrier parked 100 miles off the coast.   Its denizens (the crew, so to say) are living at a high, subsidized standard, better than China and most of Asia.  What will the Chinese mainland government contemplate? Consider the US response since 1950s when a *single island* off its coast became controlled (they said) by a distant power.  Perhaps you remember a US sponsored invasion.   A foreign outpost just offshore is not going to be tolerated by a great power.   Just as Russia will greatly oppose the Ukraine becoming a US ally and stationing US missiles at the Ukraine-Russia border.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

bennymix said:


> A foreign outpost just offshore is not going to be tolerated by a great power.   Just as Russia will greatly oppose the Ukraine becoming a US ally and stationing US missiles at the Ukraine-Russia border.


Of course it won't. Only the deluded and the bought priesthood believe that the United States will stand idly by while a peer competitor emerges and threatens its dominance (and that dominance is not predicated on democracy, human rights or whatever other talking points are spouted by the likes of Mike Pompeo, Tom Cotton or Nancy Pelosi). It is still US national security policy to prevent the rise of a true peer competitor. Indeed, Russia, China and the US are fundamentally similar in this regard and always have been. War between the US-led bloc and China is highly likely at some point in the future. These nuclear-armed imperialist powers remain a grave threat to us all as they seek to muscle each other out of the way in a bid for regional or global supremacy.



> And when examining what China has done, the evidence is clear: while the nation obviously wants to be a major power in East Asia, and while it hopes to one day conquer Taiwan, there’s little to suggest that, in the short term at least, it aims to replace the United States as the regional, let alone global, hegemon. *Neither China’s increased military budget (which pales in comparison to the United States’ $800 billion) nor its foreign development aid (which is not linked to a recipient country’s politics) indicates that it desires domination. In fact, Chinese leaders, who tolerate the presence of tens of thousands of troops stationed near their borders, appear willing to allow the United States to remain a major player in Asia, something Americans would never countenance in the Western Hemisphere.*
> 
> Ironically, liberal internationalists are imposing their own goals for hegemony onto China. Their commitment to armed primacy—a commitment that has led to war after war—threatens to increase tensions with a country that Americans must cooperate with to solve the real problems of the twenty-first century: climate change, pandemics, and inequality. When compared with these existential threats, the liberal internationalist obsession with primacy is a relic of a bygone era. For the sake of the world, we must move beyond it.



Empire Burlesque, by Daniel Bessner -  Harper's Magazine


----------

