|
Vorpal Cat posted:So if we do count that little "incident" in 1688, the question is, is there any country that can claim to have gone longer then 326 years without an invasion? I think Liechtenstein was never invaded, though it's really only 315 or so years old.
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:58 |
|
|
Torrannor posted:I think Liechtenstein was never invaded, though it's really only 315 or so years old. It was actually invaded accidentally by the Swiss military a few years ago. Seems the Swiss were doing some regular training maneuvers when a couple of units got lost and ended up in Liechtenstein, which I guess legally constitutes an invasion. Life's funny that way. e: here's a couple of articles on the subject: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/mar/02/markoliver http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/opinion/13iht-edstamm.4893796.html?_r=1&
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
Don't forget the Dutch were at war with England until 1986. Then they decided 335 years was quite long enough and signed a peace treaty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
England->Great Britain and France spent roughly 337 of the 735 years between 1066 and 1801 at war. They've managed to keep it pretty quiet comparatively since, but I like to imagine the favorite bored pastime of the medieval Kings of France or England was to invade the other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
I guess Dejima does not count as "colonization," the occupation of Japan after the Second World War apparently had no European component, and Russia had no real influence in Korea before 1904 among other things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
I feel like separating American and even Japanese colonialism from the European is a bit silly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I feel like separating American and even Japanese colonialism from the European is a bit silly. They probably did it to have at least some very few countries not colonized. What would remain, Thailand? Is that even accurate? I have no real knowledge about Thai history.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:If you're counting unsuccessful invasion, England/Britain can only go back to 1745, not 1688. The Second Jacobite Rising involved "Bonnie Prince Charlie" successfully making a landing in Scotland at first. Exactly, and he managed to get to Derby (130 miles from London) before turning back to reinforce in Scotland. Interestingly his army was never defeated in England so this could count as a semi-successful invasion. The last battle on the British mainland is usually considered to be Culloden in December 1745 (near Inverness in the north of Scotland, where Bonnie Prince Charlies army was completely defeated) but it was infact the Battle of Fishguard in 1797. French Republican forces landed in Wales with about 1500 men as a diversionary attack with a much larger force due to land in Ireland later. Poor discipline and bad luck led to the entire force surrendering - they had missed their landing site and quite unfortunately landed near a town where some British regular officers were hosting a social event, who quickly mobilised the local guards units to meet the attack. The French force became stuck on the beaches and requested a conditional surrender which was denied in favour of an unconditional one; the British gave them an ultimatum of a few hours before forming up ready to attack. Some stories claim that English civilians came out to watch the attack and the French mistook them for British soldiers (they were mainly wearing red cloaks and black hats) and because of this believed they were outnumbered and surrounded. They accepted the ultimatum and marched to captivity, before being returned to France a couple of years later in a prisoner exchange. There was also that battle in 1940/1941 where a German bomber crash landed in England. Usually bomber crews would abandon their aircraft and flee, hoping to surrender to police officers or soldiers rather than to an angry shotgun-armed farmer whose sheep they had just scared. This crew decided to stay with the plane, set demolition charges and dig in with the planes machine guns. A company was dispatched to capture them and after a brief firefight (nobody died) the Germans surrendered and the plane was captured as well. This one is considered the last engagement between British and foreign forces on British soil. Finally there was the German invasion of the Channel Islands in 1940, which due to a complicated political situation aren't part of the UK but are part of the British Isles. British forces withdrew more or less immediately and the islands remained under German occupation until 1945, having been completely bypassed by Operation Overlord. They were eventually starved out - Red Cross ships delivered food in early 1945 but the Germans, realising the game was probably up, actually unloaded and rationed the food to the civilians without claiming any for themselves. VE Day was announced on May 8th and the two largest islands surrendered when British forces arrived on May 9th (the third on the 10th and the fourth on the 16th). However: quote:It appears that the first place liberated in Jersey may have been the British General Post Office Jersey repeater station. Mr Warder, a GPO lineman, had been stranded in the island during the occupation. He did not wait for the island to be liberated and went to the repeater station where he informed the German officer in charge that he was taking over the building on behalf of the British Post Office. According to the museum in Jersey (the main island) the German officer surrendered his pistol and offered Mr Warder cigarettes and schnappes. In return, Mr Warder nipped home to where his wife had been cooking stew and took a pot round for the German soldiers 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Naaah doesn't count some of our own peeps wanted it If they had a vote with see-thru ballot boxes then they weren't invaded.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Animated voting rate in the US, 1980-2012.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Animated voting rate in the US, 1980-2012. Wow, I thought for sure that Obama's first election would get the highest turnout.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
Honj Steak posted:San Marino has never been successfully conquered and it was founded 1600-1700 years ago. So its never been annexed and then liberated, but its mostly just agreed to do whatever authority was around it asked. But they did manage to survive being essentially one city so good for them. Does anyone know anything about Monaco though? I guess they must have been invaded by either the Italians, or the Germans, or all three at one point or another during ww2 at least?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:San Marino was occupied a few times during the Renaissance, and I suppose each time it was successfully since its just holding down what at the time was one town with a few villages around it. When the Papal State became the premier power in the area San Marino just allied itself with it in order to preserve its independence (and even then Papal troops occupied it once). When Napoleon invaded Italy it just did not take sides and remained friendly to both. Same thing during the war of Italian unification, although it refused to unify with everyone else it signed a bunch of treaties with Italy that incorporated San Marino into wider Italian systems (for example, mail). During WW1 they didn't declare war on Austria but they did send volunteers and Austria broke relations with them. Then they went Fascist at the same time Italy did. During the war they didn't declare war on anyone, but they were bombed by the RAF once (the British then said sorry) and the territory was fought over after the Germans moved in to establish defensive positions but they got kicked out fairly quickly. San Marino was then occupied for a while but nothing serious. By now it has signed so many treaties with Italy that a lot of its policy is just de-facto whatever the Italian position or norm is. Monaco was invaded by Italy in '42 and remained occupied for most of the rest of the war, the Germans replacing the Italians after Mussolini lost power. Years before that, it was taken by the French during the Revolution and remained under French control for about twenty years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
Today, French citizens living in Monaco still have to pay French taxes!
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
As I understand it, if the royal family in Monaco ever goes extinct in the male line then the country will revert to France. So it's not surprising that there's a lot of legal connections between the two. EDIT: Ah, never mind, that appears to have been dismissed in 2002. Freudian fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Freudian posted:As I understand it, if the royal family in Monaco ever goes extinct in the male line then the country will revert to France. So it's not surprising that there's a lot of legal connections between the two. It was actually worse than that—the only people eligible to inherit the throne were direct, legitimate descendants of the reigning prince (though it was and is male-preference rather than agnatic at least). Under the old rules of succession, Rainier III's daughters and their descendants would have become ineligible to inherit upon Albert II's accession. Albert II, in turn, was approaching his fifties and had no legitimate heirs at the time of the law change (and still doesn't, although he's since copped to two illegitimate ones). The provision that the country will revert to France if the monarchy dies out still exists, but the amended law extends the line of succession to include the reigning monarch's siblings and their respective descendants, which will probably work out fine until an only child with no heirs is set to inherit the throne or something. Monaco also has a provision relating to the legitimacy of adopted children that goes back to a succession crisis about a hundred years ago—Albert I only had one child, Louis II, who in turn had no heirs at all. Were Louis II to have died with no heirs, the older succession law would have sent the titles to Wilhelm duke of Urach, a.k.a. King-elect Mindaugas II of Lithuania, which the French government found very unfavorable due to his status as a German general. A few years before Albert's death, the succession law of Monaco was amended so that Louis II's illegitimate daughter Charlotte could be legitimized through adoption; she subsequently married a minor French noble and had two children, one of whom would eventually succeed Louis II as Rainier III. Basil Hayden fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Basil Hayden posted:It was actually worse than that—the only people eligible to inherit the throne were direct, legitimate descendants of the reigning prince (though it was and is male-preference rather than agnatic at least). Under the old rules of succession, Rainier III's daughters and their descendants would have become ineligible to inherit upon Albert II's accession. Albert II, in turn, was approaching his fifties and had no legitimate heirs at the time of the law change (and still doesn't, although he's since copped to two illegitimate ones). Out of curiosity, who exactly will inherit the throne of Monaco? The French republican government or a specific person in french government like the president?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Wouldn't be the first microstate for which the French president doubles as a monarch: (though he shares that office with the Bishop of Urgell in Spain)
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Disco Infiva posted:Out of curiosity, who exactly will inherit the throne of Monaco? The French republican government or a specific person in french government like the president? I think I misread—it looks like as part of the 2002 changes they added a provision whereby in case of a lack of heirs the Crown Council can select a new heir, with the only stipulation apparently being that they hold Monegasque citizenship at the time. They also signed a new treaty with France which effectively dismisses the previous provision by which Monaco would become a French protectorate if the throne fell vacant. Basil Hayden fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Guys no country has gone more than a few years without being successfully invaded by the reptilians, duh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:Some stories claim that English civilians came out to watch the attack and the French mistook them for British soldiers (they were mainly wearing red cloaks and black hats) and because of this believed they were outnumbered and surrounded. Welsh women civilians to be precise, in the traditional Welsh dress.  It was suggested they looked like a company of red-coat grenadiers (the story is probably apocryphal).
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
 The source has an interactive version. New York and Oregon really surprise me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Maps like this make me realize how small and cramped Gaza really is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Family Values posted:
In New York possession of small amounts is basically a traffic ticket so I don't know if they're counting that as an "arrest" or not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Family Values posted:
New York has historically had very strict drug laws. But, this may also reflect the influence of "broken windows" policing theory in New York. The contrast with Massachusetts and Pennsylvania is particularly striking though. Edit: Any idea what the time period for the date is?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Kainser posted:Maps like this make me realize how small and cramped Gaza really is. Also what a huge percentage of Gaza the otherwise reasonable sounding "buffer zone" is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Gleri posted:New York has historically had very strict drug laws. But, this may also reflect the influence of "broken windows" policing theory in New York. The contrast with Massachusetts and Pennsylvania is particularly striking though. Massachusetts decriminalized possession of marijuana for personal use in 2008, so that's why they've got basically zero arrests. quote:Edit: Any idea what the time period for the date is? The caption says 2012 data. Also the results are per capita and by county, and consistent throughout the state. If the trend was related strongly to quality of life policing you would expect to see lower numbers outside NYC, because dogmatic adherence to broken windows theory is more of an NYPD thing. In '73 the Governor of New York, Nelson Rockefeller, was thinking about a presidential run. He was well-known as a liberal Republican to the point that his name was a signifier for the whole moderate-left wing of the GOP ("Rockefeller Republicans") and to some extent still is. To have any prayer of making it through the primary campaign he needed to curry favor with the right wing of the party, which he did by shepherding draconian narcotics legislation through the legislature. NY is still coping with the legacies of those laws, and that's a major reason they have an insane number of weed busts per capita. According to what I can find online, personal use is supposed to be decriminalized in New York, but there's an amusing little loophole where if the weed is in public view the police can arrest you. So if they suspect you possess marijuana, they tell you to empty your pockets, which means it is now in public view and you can be arrested! NY is moving towards greater liberalization, though, with Cuomo signing a medical marijuana law earlier this month.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
NEED TOILET PAPER posted:It was actually invaded accidentally by the Swiss military a few years ago. Seems the Swiss were doing some regular training maneuvers when a couple of units got lost and ended up in Liechtenstein, which I guess legally constitutes an invasion. Life's funny that way. As far as I know this happens semi-regularly (reading maps is hard. So is reading the name tables at village entrances apparently). We also invade France every few years (long green border in wooded areas). There's also some shelling of Italy because when you shoot at an alp but aim too high, it seems like the missile can fly quite some distance more than intended ... Austria is happy to have the Rhine as a border and many mountains where the military doesn't go too often (too many tourists probably). Germany also has the Rhine for nearly the whole border. Except for some off-duty military personnel taking the normal route to Schaffhausen which is only allowed for civilians since it crosses German territory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Kainser posted:Maps like this make me realize how small and cramped Gaza really is. Yeah man. The place as a whole has a population density equivalent to Boston.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 23:22
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Kainser posted:Maps like this make me realize how small and cramped Gaza really is. No kidding. I've walked the width of the gaza strip coming home from the pub some nights. I had really no conceptualisation of quite how small it was until seeing that map.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Also what a huge percentage of Gaza the otherwise reasonable sounding "buffer zone" is. Otherwise reasonable? Not to bring the I/P thread into this one, but what constitutes a "reasonable" buffer zone around a walled ghetto? \/ \/ Okay fair enough, I may have been a bit too hasty in my judgment there. SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:Otherwise reasonable? Not to bring the I/P thread into this one, but what constitutes a "reasonable" buffer zone around a walled ghetto? Otherwise reasonable sounding, don't cut up what people say to make it say something else.If you know next to nothing about the I/P conflict other than what you see on TV news, and if you live in a absolutely massive country like, say, the United States, then if they say on the news that Israel has imposed a "3km buffer zone" around Gaza, that's going to sound like a tiny area, and you will be given the impression that such a measure might be a reasonable security precaution and a respectably minimal level of action, when in fact it is essentially a straight up invasion of half of the territory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:Otherwise reasonable sounding, don't cut up what people say to make it say something else.If you know next to nothing about the I/P conflict other than what you see on TV news, and if you live in a absolutely massive country like, say, the United States, then if they say on the news that Israel has imposed a "3km buffer zone" around Gaza, that's going to sound like a tiny area, and you will be given the impression that such a measure might be a reasonable security precaution and a respectably minimal level of action, when in fact it is essentially a straight up invasion of half of the territory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:Otherwise reasonable sounding, don't cut up what people say to make it say something else.If you know next to nothing about the I/P conflict other than what you see on TV news, and if you live in a absolutely massive country like, say, the United States, then if they say on the news that Israel has imposed a "3km buffer zone" around Gaza, that's going to sound like a tiny area, and you will be given the impression that such a measure might be a reasonable security precaution and a respectably minimal level of action, when in fact it is essentially a straight up invasion of half of the territory. Yes this. I do follow the I/P conflict closely, so I know it's not reasonable at all. It just reminds me of the inner German border, how you needed special permission to get into the 5km restricted zone on the East German side. That was still a pretty small part of East Germany, and while I'm very opposed to any such thing (being born in East Germany), aside from the fact that our government treated the whole country as a prison for us, the 5 km buffer zone wasn't too unreasonable if you accept the general idea of the wall. But in Gaza's case it's obviously in an entirely different category, since it's perhaps 25% (20%? 30%?) of the entire country!
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
The buffer zone is actually 40% of Gaza. Sorry for not giving you the benefit of the doubt and attacking you; I was a bit worked up coming from the latest tragic updates in the I/P thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:The buffer zone is actually 40% of Gaza. Sorry for not giving you the benefit of the doubt and attacking you; I was a bit worked up coming from the latest tragic updates in the I/P thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
If they must insist on a buffer zone, why can't it be outside Gaza and in Israeli territory? If there are only two border crossings they could be modified to have a traffic crossing and a foot crossing (at both crossings obviously) and the Israelis would have complete security control over however long they made the actual crossings. I've seen crossings in SE Asia and Africa where you turn up on a motorbike, get stamped out and have to walk well over a kilometre through no-mans land to get stamped into the next country. Cars have to travel down a specific road at a constant speed and can be stopped and searched by the country on the other side and potentially turned back well before they get anywhere near the actual border. Obviously this is a less than ideal solution but surely better than telling 40% of people to leave their impoverished crowded piece of land and find somewhere else to live in their equally impoverished crowded strip of land.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 10:52
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:Obviously this is a less than ideal solution but surely better than telling 40% of people to leave their impoverished crowded piece of land and find somewhere else to live in their equally impoverished crowded strip of land. It's not better when those people are Palestinians who have the gall to do things like exist and not just drop dead so Israel can have the land.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 10:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:58 |
|
|
duckmaster posted:If they must insist on a buffer zone, why can't it be outside Gaza and in Israeli territory? Because the end goal is to completely reassimilate Gaza into Israel and either drive away or kill all the muslims currently living there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 11:08
|
|