British have invaded nine out of ten countries

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Seshmeister
    ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

    • Oct 2003
    • 35197

    British have invaded nine out of ten countries



    British have invaded nine out of ten countries - so look out Luxembourg

    Britain has invaded all but 22 countries in the world in its long and colourful history, new research has found.



    21 of the 22 countries that have not been invaded by Britain

    By Jasper Copping
    9:30AM GMT 04 Nov 2012

    Every schoolboy used to know that at the height of the empire, almost a quarter of the atlas was coloured pink, showing the extent of British rule.

    But that oft recited fact dramatically understates the remarkable global reach achieved by this country.

    A new study has found that at various times the British have invaded almost 90 per cent of the countries around the globe.

    The analysis of the histories of the almost 200 countries in the world found only 22 which have never experienced an invasion by the British.

    Among this select group of nations are far-off destinations such as Guatemala, Tajikistan and the Marshall Islands, as well some slightly closer to home, such as Luxembourg.

    The analysis is contained in a new book, All the Countries We've Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To.

    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.

    So, many countries which once formed part of the Spanish empire and seem to have little historical connection with the UK, such as Costa Rica, Ecuador and El Salvador, make the list because of the repeated raids they suffered from state-sanctioned British sailors.

    Among some of the perhaps surprising entries on the list are:
    * Cuba, where in 1741, a force under Admiral Edward Vernon stormed ashore at Guantánamo Bay. He renamed it Cumberland Bay, before being forced to withdraw in the face of hostile locals and an outbreak of disease among his men. Twenty one years later, Havana and a large part of the island fell to the British after a bloody siege, only to be handed back to the Spanish in 1763, along with another unlikely British possession, the Philippines, in exchange for Florida and Minorca.
    *Iceland, invaded in 1940 by the British after the neutral nation refused to enter the war on the Allies side. The invasion force, of 745 marines, met with strong protest from the Iceland government, but no resistance.
    * Vietnam, which has experienced repeated incursions by the British since the seventeenth century. The most recent – from 1945 to 1946 – saw the British fight a campaign for control of the country against communists, in a war that has been overshadowed by later conflicts involving first the French and then Americans.

    It is thought to be the first time such a list has been compiled.

    Mr Laycock, who has previously published books on Roman history, began the unusual quest after being asked by his 11-year-old son, Frederick, how many countries the British had invaded.
    After almost two years of research he said he was shocked by the answer. "I was absolutely staggered when I reached the total. I like to think I have a relatively good general knowledge. But there are places where it hadn't occurred to me that these things had ever happened. It shocked me.

    "Other countries could write similar books – but they would be much shorter. I don't think anyone could match this, although the Americans had a later start and have been working hard on it in the twentieth century."

    The only other nation which has achieved anything approaching the British total, Mr Laycock said, is France – which also holds the unfortunate record for having endured the most British invasions. "I realise people may argue with some of my reasons, but it is intended to prompt debate," he added.
    He believes the actual figure may well be higher and is inviting the public to get in touch to provide evidence of other invasions.

    In the case of Mongolia, for instance – one of the 22 nations "not invaded", according to the book – he believes it possible that there could have been a British invasion, but could find no direct proof.

    The country was caught up in the turmoil following the Russian Revolution, in which the British and other powers intervened. Mr Laycock found evidence of a British military mission in Russia approximately 50 miles from the Mongolian border, but could not establish whether it got any closer.
    The research lists countries based on their current national boundaries and names. Many of the invasions took place when these did not apply.

    The research covered the 192 other UN member states as well as the Vatican City and Kosovo, which are not member states, but are recognised by the UK government as independent states.
    The earliest invasion launched from these islands was an incursion into Gaul – now France – at the end of the second century. Clodius Albinus led an army, thought to include many Britons, across the Channel in an attempt to seize the imperial throne. The force was defeated in 197 at Lyon.
    Mr Laycock added: "One one level, for the British, it is quite amazing and quite humbling, that this is all part of our history, but clearly there are parts of our history that we are less proud of. The book is not intended as any kind of moral judgment on our history or our empire. It is meant as a light-hearted bit of fun."

    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
  • Kristy
    DIAMOND STATUS
    • Aug 2004
    • 16338

    #2
    Didn't they also invade the Gulf of Mexico back in April of 2010?

    Comment

    • Seshmeister
      ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

      • Oct 2003
      • 35197

      #3
      I don't think of BP as being British any more.

      They dropped the word British from their name a while back, their biggest division is BP America and they don't pay much of their tax here.
      Last edited by Seshmeister; 11-06-2012, 12:56 PM.

      Comment

      • ZahZoo
        ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

        • Jan 2004
        • 8970

        #4
        Of those 21... how many have the Brits had their asses booted out of eventually?
        "If you want to be a monk... you gotta cook a lot of rice...”

        Comment

        • lesfunk
          Full Member Status

          • Jan 2004
          • 3583

          #5
          They did it in 1963. It was called the Beatles
          http://gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=4448212&t=o GIFSoup

          Comment

          • Nitro Express
            DIAMOND STATUS
            • Aug 2004
            • 32798

            #6
            If you look at the countries ruled by imperial powers, the british ruled countries usually fared better than ones ruled by Portugal, France, and Spain. On the pearl river delta you had British Hong Kong on one side and on the other side Portuguese Maccau. Hong Kong was a vibrant place with a strong economy and Maccau was a cess pool with a few casinos. Of course Britiain was not squeaky clean. They might import opium into you country and get your people strung out on it so they could take you over.

            But British rule was usually better than Spanish rule. The Spanish were thugs who would destroy your culture and force catholicism on you and rape your resources.
            No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!

            Comment

            • Seshmeister
              ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

              • Oct 2003
              • 35197

              #7
              Yeah the British were a bit less cunty than the other colonial powers but still not great. The best thing you could say is that at least if you were a British colony you may now have the advantage of speaking English and so don't need to watch overdubbed Hollywood movies.

              The worst were the Spanish as you say, and the Belgians.

              The Belgians were unbelievably fucking horrible, they wiped out 10 MILLION in the Congo in the late 1800s.

              It's funny how there are some bits of history that you just don't hear about very often...

              Comment

              • Nitro Express
                DIAMOND STATUS
                • Aug 2004
                • 32798

                #8
                Originally posted by Seshmeister
                Yeah the British were a bit less cunty than the other colonial powers but still not great. The best thing you could say is that at least if you were a British colony you may now have the advantage of speaking English and so don't need to watch overdubbed Hollywood movies.

                The worst were the Spanish as you say, and the Belgians.

                The Belgians were unbelievably fucking horrible, they wiped out 10 MILLION in the Congo in the late 1800s.

                It's funny how there are some bits of history that you just don't hear about very often...
                The French were awful too. Even in modern times. My father In-Law was a US Air Force consultant to the French in indo-China when the French were fighting the Viet Cong. He said the French soldiers treated the Vietmese nationals so shitty he just about punched some of them.

                I've spent a lot of time in latin America and the history of the Spanish atrocities is maddening. One thing I do credit the Chinese for is they aren't going into countries and giving them an IMF loan and then taking their resources when they default nor are they invading Africa or other places with troops. They come in and become a good customer. That might change in the future who knows. Their treatment of Tibet has been quite harsh.
                No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!

                Comment

                • Nitro Express
                  DIAMOND STATUS
                  • Aug 2004
                  • 32798

                  #9
                  What Britain had going for it is they had the naval expertise and they had the steam technology. Also, they built railroads which are still being used in places like India. They seemed better at diplomacy and colonizing than most countries.

                  Really that's why Singapore is a popular business hub. They speak English there. Then you have everyone coming in from all parts of Asia, the Americas, Europe, India, and the Middle East and everyone is doing deals speaking English. If the British didn't colonize the world, we would have to learn a few languages to do any business. The educated in the world usually speak English as a second language. I speak Cantonese but I don't speak Mandarin. So a lot of times when I deal with northern Chinese people, we just speak English. LOL! If we speak Chinese we can't understand each other.
                  Last edited by Nitro Express; 11-07-2012, 05:44 AM.
                  No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!

                  Comment

                  • Nickdfresh
                    SUPER MODERATOR

                    • Oct 2004
                    • 49205

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Seshmeister
                    Yeah the British were a bit less cunty than the other colonial powers but still not great. The best thing you could say is that at least if you were a British colony you may now have the advantage of speaking English and so don't need to watch overdubbed Hollywood movies.

                    The worst were the Spanish as you say, and the Belgians.

                    The Belgians were unbelievably fucking horrible, they wiped out 10 MILLION in the Congo in the late 1800s.

                    It's funny how there are some bits of history that you just don't hear about very often...
                    King Leopold was the biggest cunt of all. The irony here is that human rights and atrocity propaganda was essentially created by Belgians and the Allies during the WWI German occupation of Belgium...

                    Comment

                    • Seshmeister
                      ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

                      • Oct 2003
                      • 35197

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Nickdfresh
                      King Leopold was the biggest cunt of all.
                      Well you had to behave pretty insanely badly towards Africans in those days to get the rest of Europe upset...

                      Did you know in the 2nd Congo war(which killed millions) from 1998 both sides hunted down pygmies for food?

                      Comment

                      • Nickdfresh
                        SUPER MODERATOR

                        • Oct 2004
                        • 49205

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Seshmeister
                        Well you had to behave pretty insanely badly towards Africans in those days to get the rest of Europe upset...

                        Did you know in the 2nd Congo war(which killed millions) from 1998 both sides hunted down pygmies for food?
                        I did not, but that certainly doesn't surprise me. It was also the bloodiest conflict since WWII and was pretty much ignored by everyone. Interesting because a lot of it was fought over minerals like the metal tantalum, used in cell phones and fucking iPuds of course...

                        Tech companies make progress on 'blood phones' and 'conflict minerals'
                        By John D. Sutter, CNN
                        updated 12:13 AM EDT, Thu August 16, 2012

                        (CNN) -- They've been called "blood phones."

                        It's a reference to the fact that some metals used to make smartphones and other electronic gadgets are sourced from war-torn areas of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

                        Experts say these "conflict minerals" help fuel one of the world's deadliest conflicts. An estimated 5.4 million people have died there from war-related causes, including disease and malnutrition, since 1998, according to the International Rescue Committee.

                        But according to a report released Thursday by the Enough Project, an advocacy group, metals from the Congo are getting less bloody.

                        That's thanks in part to the fact that tech companies like Intel, HP, Dell, Microsoft and Apple have made efforts to trace the source of metals used in their devices. An auditing system for smelters, the industrial facilities that process raw metals, also has been put in place. A certification system is in the works that would allow companies to certify some metals from Congo as "conflict free."
                        War in Africa funded by cell phones

                        Other tech companies, however, like Nintendo, Canon, Nikon, Sharp and HTC, received low rankings from the group. Nintendo was the only company out of 24 ranked by the Enough Project that received a score of zero, for taking no steps to ensure that its electronics do not support armed groups in central Africa.
                        Conflict minerals of Congo

                        "Nintendo is, I believe, the only company that has basically refused to acknowledge the issue or demonstrate they are making any sort of effort on it," said Sasha Lezhnev, senior policy analyst at the Enough Project. "And this is despite a good two years of trying to get in contact with them."

                        In a statement issued to CNN, Nintendo said it "outsources the manufacture and assembly of all Nintendo products to our production partners and therefore is not directly involved in the sourcing of raw materials that are ultimately used in our products."

                        The company added: "We nonetheless take our social responsibilities as a global company very seriously and expect our production partners to do the same."

                        A Nintendo spokeswoman declined to comment on conflict minerals specifically.

                        Other companies saw their scores improve from a similar report in 2010.

                        Intel ranked highest on the Enough Project's list with a score of 60, meaning it has taken 60% of the steps recommended by the group to ensure it is responsibly tracking conflict minerals. That's up from a score of 24 in 2010. Apple and Microsoft both scored 38, up from 13 and 15, respectively. Nokia scored 35, up from 19. IBM, Sony, LG and Samsung received scores of 27. Three of those companies had received scores lower than 10 in the previous Enough Project ranking.

                        The report says there is still much to be done, however.

                        "Despite the progress made in the past year by both governments and industry, a long road still lies ahead," the group says in its report, titled "Taking Conflict Out of Consumer Gadgets." "Exploitation of Congo's mineral resources continues to exacerbate conflict and instability on the ground and consumers are still largely in the dark as to whether or not their products are conflict free.

                        "It will take a holistic effort by multiple governments and industries to regulate the flow of illegal conflict minerals. The driver of that effort must remain the demand of the conscious consumer."

                        The Enough Project says the results are already apparent on the ground in the Congo. The amount of money armed groups make off three of the main conflict minerals (tin, tantalum and tungsten) has dropped 65% over the past two years, according to a report released earlier this month, which attributes the decrease both to the efforts of the tech industry and to new legislation.

                        A rule tucked into 2010 financial reform legislation in the United States may soon require companies to disclose whether they source metals form conflict zones. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is expected to vote on those rules concerning conflict minerals on August 22. Some business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say the SEC should reconsider the rules because they are too expensive or complex to implement.

                        Four metals -- gold, tin, tantalum and tungsten -- are used in gadgets and also are mined in the eastern Congo, a region of the vast country that has been in active conflict for years.

                        Armed groups have profited from mining these metals, holding some workers at gunpoint and forcing them to work for little or no pay, according to the group Free the Slaves.

                        New certifications systems, however, aim to attach bar codes to packages of Congolese metals that have been certified as conflict-free. The Enough Project also says there are efforts to differentiate Congolese metals from others by their color and other physical properties.

                        Many challenges remain. The growth of a rebel group called M23 and ongoing gold smuggling threaten to further destabilize the mining industry, the report says.

                        Companies once were "turning a blind eye to where they're getting their materials from," said Lezhnev. But after considerable pressure from advocacy groups and college students, more of them have become aware of the issue.

                        "Sunshine," he said, "is the best disinfectant."
                        Other link: http://www.rescue.org/special-report...report-congo-y

                        Comment

                        • Nitro Express
                          DIAMOND STATUS
                          • Aug 2004
                          • 32798

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Seshmeister
                          Well you had to behave pretty insanely badly towards Africans in those days to get the rest of Europe upset...

                          Did you know in the 2nd Congo war(which killed millions) from 1998 both sides hunted down pygmies for food?
                          The new imperial player in Africa is China. The Chinese are pretty smart. They just come in and treat the Africans better than the Europeans have. China's current strategy is to be the better customer.
                          No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!

                          Comment

                          • Nitro Express
                            DIAMOND STATUS
                            • Aug 2004
                            • 32798

                            #14
                            Oh yeah the Germans. Not the best imperialist. They had a bad habit of invading people. Right now the US is running on the German model of operations.
                            No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!

                            Comment

                            • Kristy
                              DIAMOND STATUS
                              • Aug 2004
                              • 16338

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Seshmeister
                              .

                              The worst were the Spanish as you say, and the Belgians.

                              The Belgians were unbelievably fucking horrible, they wiped out 10 MILLION in the Congo in the late 1800s.

                              It's funny how there are some bits of history that you just don't hear about very often...
                              Thought that was the Dutch was loved the slave trade in those days. It was the limeys who loved the tobacco/cotton trade so they could "sell" to god forsaken places in the Far East in between bouts of raping women for exchanged goods.

                              Comment

                              Working...