"Britain has invaded 90% of countries in the world? " Topic

Interesting article in the Telegraph yesterday:

link

Seems to be really stretching the truth a bit: when did Great Britain invade Namibia or Zimbabwe? Or South Africa for that matter? Australia and New Zealand were not countries and in any case were settled rather than invaded? When did Britain invade Japan and South Korea? The likes of Ethiopia, Libya and Madagascar were 'invaded' to throw out Nazi forces and when did Great Britain invade Norway and Finland?

Perhaps they are using the term a bit loosely, e.g. set foot in = invaded.

I imagine the Australian aboriginals, and native New Zealanders would have a different take on the matter, at least back in the day, if not now.

Still, 90% does seem like a rather high number.

Perhaps it just shows dogged English/British determination, and/or a strong desire to explore…..

;-)

They did not have flags:

YouTube link

NSFW

when did Great Britain invade Norway and Finland?

During the Crimean War, an allied Anglo-French fleet operated in the Baltic Sea, and this included UK forces making a number of small raids on the western coast of Finland. Also a fortress in the Aland archipelago was captured and destroyed. However, at the time Finland was not an independent country, but an autonomous part of the Russian Empire.

UK also declared war on Finland in late 1941 (probably due to pressure from Stalin), but this did not lead to actual military operations, though a number of Finnish citizens abroad ended up getting interned for the duration of hostilities.

As for Norway, the only UK military involvement I can think of was in spring 1940, but that was to oppose the German invasion of Norway.

Britain 'invaded' Norway in 1940. And I think they operated out of Finnish bases, against the Bolsheviks, in 1919.

There was an expedition to Norway in the 1640s, I think? And of course there was 1940 and various Commando raids against the Germans. Finland's got me stumped though.

It seems that the author is taking any military incursion on that territory as an 'invasion'. In many cases these operations were actually being conducted against an occupying power, rather than the locals themselves.

He could also have counted Guatemala, as a British Army patrol did accidentally stray over the border in the 1970s. I'm also wondering if Wellington's army might have passed through Andorra in 1814 – French hegemony in Andorra certainly ended then.

I think British politicians looked at some other countries on the map as well (even if they weren't countries then) – so the intent was clearly there

Ah, it was 1665, when the English fleet went after the Dutch in Bergen (as part of the 2nd Anglo-Dutch War) and the Norwegians sided with the Dutch.

Which raises another issue… Do any military actions prior to the First Act of Union count as 'British'?

The methodology seems to be pretty clearly spelled out in the article:

"Stuart Laycock, the author, has worked his way around the globe, through each country alphabetically, researching its history to establish whether, at any point, they have experienced an incursion by Britain.

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

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

Incursions by British pirates, privateers or armed explorers have also been included, provided they were operating with the approval of their government."

With this benchmark, the high number can hardly surprise anybody – actually one has to wonder why H.M.'s "armed explorers" never got round to completing their world survey…

Well, in terms of martial pride, it seems that just about anything after the legions left counts as "British" … so I suppose this is the other side of the coin (even if the context is a bit dubious).

So who is in the 10% we still got to go? :-)

Greenland?!

I am not in the least surprised. We have been around along time and for many centuries had global interests and seapower to match, whether as 'England' or 'Great Britain'.

Yes – the methodology is spelled out in the article, but it seems rather dubious to me.

I am not sure if you can reasonably count 'invasions' that occured before the act of Union or before the so-called 'invaded' country itself existed? And counting those done to liberate / support the nation in question seems a little unfair too.

Including nations where there has been a British military 'presence' is simply ridiculous.

Ah, it was 1665, when the English fleet went after the Dutch in Bergen (as part of the 2nd Anglo-Dutch War) and the Norwegians sided with the Dutch.

At that time, Norway was not fully independent country, being part of a personal union with the kingdom of Denmark.

Visited? :-)

At least it's a lot better than if it were the other way around – having been invaded by 90% of the rest of the world!

Griefbringer,

Yes, but that doesn't seem to matter to the author, as a great many of the countries listed (e.g. Namibia, Tanzania, Finland, Canada, Florida, Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Iceland, various Caribbean islands, etc, etc) were provinces of other empires when Britain arrived there.

10% still left??? You guys have been slacking!

And since when was Florida a country? A Spanish possession yes, an independent country never unless you count the native American tribes as "countries".

And what's the deal with Luxembourg? Heck that's in you guy's neighborhood and heaven knows that your armies were all over France, Belgium, Germany, and Holland! You couldn't be bothered to take that right turn in Liege and finish the job eh? Sloppy you lot, very sloppy… tut, tut, tut….

R Mark Davies

And I believe German South West Africa / Namibia was in any case invaded by South African troops, not British ones?

Though I think I am right in saying that a British military training team was stationed in Namibia in the 1990s, so by the author's crack-pot standards that 'presence' would be enough to qualify as an 'invasion'.

Doh! :o) Yes, of course Florida isn't listed there. I was just thinking of imperial possessions that we were fighting over and had a brain-fart.

Right lads. Obviously we need to get this sorted. Can we agree on the ones left out and then come up with a coherent plan for completing the set?

Re. Greenland… were RAF / RN assets based there during the Battle of the Atlantic?

Bully,

Yes, it was an entirely South African-Portuguese affair, without any direct British involvement, but I suppose he lumps SA in with the British Empire. You might have a point re the BATT. There was also a British contingent in the UN-sponsored observer mission on the Namibian-Angolan border during the late 80s/early 90s.

Which brings up Angola… What did we ever do there (apart from the above-mentioned UN contingent)?!

PilGrim,

We've already bagged Guatemala (fleetingly) in the 1970s and have reasonable suspicion to believe that we also bagged Andorra in 1814 and Luxembourg in the days of Marlborough. Judging by the author's standards, we could probably also bag Liechtenstein, as it's hosted a few British Army skiing courses, plus the Vatican, as it's been visited by the Royal Family, who hold a shedload of colonelcies between them…

Bully,

Greenland was solely a US effort and while there might have been the occasional visiting ship or aircraft, there was no established presence there. We initially occupied Iceland after the fall of Denmark, but the USMC took over in 1941 (one of those sneaky things that nice man Roosevelt did for us without actually declaring war on Germany), allowing us to withdraw a whole division back to the UK, leaving a small RAF and RN presence on the island.

when was Florida a country?

Well Florida has the Conch republic

Right lads. Obviously we need to get this sorted. Can we agree on the ones left out and then come up with a coherent plan for completing the set?

If you look at the original link they are listed.

The countries never invaded* by the British:
Andorra
Belarus
Bolivia
Burundi
Central African Republic
Chad
Congo, Republic of
Guatemala
Ivory Coast
Kyrgyzstan
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Mali
Marshall Islands
Monaco
Mongolia
Paraguay
Sao Tome and Principe
Sweden
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Vatican City

Start ticking them off :-)

*Emphasis added, as his definition of 'invaded' seems slightly dubious.

And the DRC? When were the Brits ever in there?

"Which brings up Angola… What did we ever do there (apart from the above-mentioned UN contingent)?!"

Invade German SW Africa from it in WW1 perhaps?

Or possibly some colonial scrap back in the good old days of Vasco da Gama et al.

"Luxembourg"

I am sure Marlborough marched through there on the way to the Danube back in 170-whatever. As the good Duke paid his bills for forage, perhaps it didn't count as an invasion.

When I worked in Angola in the early 2000s, one of the RN's Type 42s docked in Luanda for a few days. I assume this qualifies as having 'achieved some sort of military presence in the territory – however transitory – either through force, the threat of force, negotiation or payment'.

Luxembourg

Did no British troops enter Luxembourg in either world war or the Napoleonic Wars?

Seems to be just another y over dramatised media article to me. Why give it crediblity by discussing it?

I think he uses the term states to refer to the geographic region. Which they should had more clearly stated. So it is more like England-UK has had a military presence in 90% of the geographic regions made up of states in the modern international system.

The terms and concepts are a bit too loose for my liking. That said make not mistake. The UK had a rather adventurous foreign policy.

If we really in a bit more tighter concepts (relatively speaking) under Correlates of Wars definitions of a Militarized Dispute, using Zeev Maoz's cleaned Dyadic Dispute Dataset, the UK from 1816 to 2001 has had a militarized interstate dispute with 59 of 242 polities that have been members at one point or another of the "Modern" International Political System from 1816 to 2001.

That is not a small number. For comparison the Americans had MIDs with 58 states, the Russians with 52, the French 59.

So the British at least when it comes to interstate spats are not that worse then the other MPs. N

ow if you include extra-systemic conflicts, States vs. Polities that are not part of the "Modern" International Political System (ranging from organised tribal cultures like the Maori, to pre-"modern" polities like Aceh)then by the Cow Extra-systemic war data (1816-1997) the UK fought 47 of 121 extra systemic wars in the data-set, the US 2, Russia 4 and France 28.

Obviously the 90% finding, at least in the post-1816 period of international history, is driven by this second set of organized conflict, which the UK dominates .

In a way just like the COW dataset, the authors of the study cited in the Topic commit a sampling error by using countries as the unit of their analysis since a lot of those borders were made (and a lot of those polities that became "states" i.e members of the "modern" international political system) by the "grace" of the English/UK

It does show you the crucial role the UK has played in the form of the modern world.

Tarleton, it's actually a new book.

Martin,

No, the Portuguese certainly attacked German SWA from Angola, but there was no British involvement. As you say, it was probably some minor privateer escapade by 'El Draco' or somesuch.

Are History Channel publishing books now?!

Lies, damn lies and statistics comes to mind. Still, 9 out of 10 isn't too shabby if you think about it…

Meh.
Not recently, and not all at once.

They did sort of used to own the dang planet, though.
-Kle.

You say that like it's a bad thing! ;o)

The premise plays fast and loose with words…

An invasion (in this context) INFERS an uninvited military incursion, quite different from just, "we strolled around on."

But saying the British have taken a walk on 90% of nations just does not have the same ring does it? Not attention-grabbing enough, so lets change that, no matter how misleading it is.

And since when was Florida a country? A Spanish possession yes, an independent country never unless you count the native American tribes as "countries".

Briefly, in 1810 it was.
link

I'm surprised no one else mentioned this.It's the sort of antiquarian trivia I expect on any war-gaming forum.

All in all though, the article does suit my own preference which is to always paint up the British military in any conflict. They get to fight almost everyone and everywhere at some point.

The same troops that fought in the Boer War can fight on the Northwest frontier, then see more action against tribesmen in Yemen, fight under Kitchner in Sudan, before going on to defeat the Boxers. What other armies can claim that?

And since when was Florida a country? A Spanish possession yes, an independent country never unless you count the native American tribes as "countries".

Briefly, in 1810 it was.
link

I'm surprised no one else mentioned this.It's the sort of antiquarian trivia I expect on any war-gaming forum.

All in all though, the article does suit my own preference which is to always paint up the British military in any conflict. They get to fight almost everyone and everywhere at some point.

The same troops that fought in the Boer War can fight on the Northwest frontier, then see more action against tribesmen in Yemen, fight under Kitchner in Sudan, before going on to defeat the Boxers. What other armies can claim that?

Mali eh…

there is a UN resolution supporting military action there just now to repel the current troublemakers for some reason or another.

I read today that the Nigerians have had to drop out of the lead because their chaps are not up to it.

A chance to strike another one off the list, it seems.

As I also read that this current mob in Mali have been burning musical instruments, which I rank as pretty close to book burning, I say now is the time, lets give them what for.

Mind you, I'm now too old to serve…

As Woody Allen said, the true test of courage is whether you would dive into the Hudson to save a drowning child… of course, I am excused because I cannot swim.

What Mardaddy said.

By the way, the list of countries should be much larger and geographic areas have changed names over the centuries as well. Also, there are areas of countries such as Italy which were separate political entities in the past.

An interesting read but so full of holes. As stated by another age poster above, invasion is quite different from conflict. The whole privateer thing is a bit ludicrous too.
Love the bit about the U.S. catching up too.

What is ironic, in many ways, is that Britain has been invaded quite a few times over the centuries too. Saxon, Viking, Normans, Romans, etc.

Seems to be just another y over dramatised media article to me. Why give it crediblity by discussing it?

Because we are having so much fun, as did the author of the work under duscussion.

YouTube link

If threatening a country is a valid form of invasion, then completing the list should be easy. Come on, you Brits on TMP, start hurling threats and insults at those countries and finish the list!

Is that 90% figure the good old fashioned invasion or is it with soccer hooligans?

We have been around along time and for many centuries had global interests and seapower to match, whether as 'England' or 'Great Britain'

My grandmother (a Breton) used to say that "the English" always want to hoist their flag on any cork floating on the sea!

I do think it's more intended as a bit of fun than anything else.

But seriously, y'all should check out Luxembourg en masse. Lovely place, but they could certainly use a handful of drunk English lads vomiting to keep things interesting at night.

Well, with just 34 combatants, the "Battle of Greenland" is certainly doable in 1:1 scale! link

I can just see another rules "supplement" in the making……