Talk:List of invasions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 December 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of invasions article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

List of invasions was moved from Invasion ca. 12 Mar 2004. See older history there. -- Zigger

---

" 1099 invasion of Jerusalem by Norman forces (First Crusade)" but Norman were not the only people who made the Crusade... Arabe says Franj for Frank Treanna 07:02, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that the entry for the 1982 invasion of the Falklands by Britain should be removed. The Falklands belonged to Britain, so they hardly "invaded" them when they fought the Argentinian military. Tabun1015

Your rationale is reasonable, however the main article says "reasons for invasion have included restoration of territory lost in the past". So the territory was first lost and then restored by the British invasion. This is consistant with the rest of the list --211.31.174.115 11:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Did the Yom Kippur War qualify as an invasion? Plasma east 02:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 invasion of US by Britain 2 invasion of Russia by allies 3 1654 and 1938 4 timeline 5 Question 6 Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[edit] invasion of US by Britain

American Revolutionary War: how is this an invasion?

This entry has now been removed. --Zigger «º» 04:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] invasion of Russia by allies

Allied Intervention in the Russian Civil War

do any of the activities mentioned in this article constitute an invasion? Russians would appear to think so.

Added to the list. --Zigger «º» 04:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1654 and 1938

1.I am curious: given that the Russians captured about half of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1654, why that cannot be considered an invasion?

They didn't capture it. They briefly overran the territory of the country which was involved in oppressing the Russian brethren in Ukraine. --Ghirla | talk 09:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Germans did not capture the Soviet territory permanently either in 1941, yet nobody sane would not consider Operation Barbarossa an invasion. The criterion that an invasion only occurs if territory is captured permanently is just silly. Balcer 15:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

2.Poland did coerce Czechoslovakia into surrendering a small piece of its territory in 1938 (the Cieszyn area, about 1% of the area of 1938 Czechoslovakia) but no historical sources call this event an invasion. So, until sources are provided that specifically use the term Polish invasion of Czechoslovakia, I will continue to remove the reference to that term (see Wikipedia:No original research). Balcer 14:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"If that is not an invasion then what was it? A friendly visit?" - using your friend Halibutt's argumentation from Talk:Cieszyn. --Ghirla | talk 09:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Remember, Wikipedia:No original research, which was my main objection here. As you cannot provide even one English language source which uses that term, I will remove that reference. Look, there are plenty of instances in history when a larger country A coerces a smaller country B to give up a piece of its territory. If this is done by agreement and without fighting, it is usually not considered an invasion.

BTW, believe me, I personally consider the Cieszyn episode one of the more dishonourable events in Polish history and it is not my intention to whitewash it. But it was not an invasion. Balcer 15:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Plus, let's not forget that an invasion is an invasion even if the invader has the best of intentions. Thus people commonly use the term Invasion of Iraq by America in 2003, even though the USA believes it overthrew Saddam Hussein to spread democracy and other good things. So the argument that the Soviet Union did not invade Poland in 1939 but instead was "liberating" just does not wash. Balcer 15:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If you think the Soviet Union did not invade Poland in 1939, please discuss this on the talk page of the main Polish September Campaign first, before introducing changes which contradict it here. Balcer 15:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Balcer and Ghirlandajo as to Soviet Union in 1939 let's just see original documents. We are in luck since they are available: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns061.htm No. 253 of September 3 BERLIN, September 3, 1939-6:50 p. m. Received MOSCOW September 4, 1939-12:30 a. m. Very Urgent! Exclusively for Ambassador. Strictly secret! For Chief of Mission or his representative personally. Top secret. To be decoded by himself. Strictest secrecy! We definitely expect to have beaten the Polish Army decisively in a few weeks. We would then keep the area that was established as German sphere of interest at Moscow under military occupation. We would naturally, however, for military reasons, also have to proceed further against such Polish military forces as are at that time located in the Polish area belonging to the Russian sphere of interest. Please discuss this at once with Molotov and see if the Soviet Union does not consider it desirable for Russian forces to move at the proper time against Polish forces in the Russian sphere of interest and, for their part, to occupy this territory. In our estimation this would be not only a relief for us, but also, in the sense of the Moscow agreements, in the Soviet interest as well. In this connection please determine whether we may discuss this matter with the officers who have just arrived here and what the Soviet Government intends their position to be. RIBBENTROP --- http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns069.htm In today's conference at 4 p. m. Molotov modified his statement of yesterday by saying that the Soviet Government was taken completely by surprise by the unexpectedly rapid German military successes. In accordance with our first communication, the Red Army had counted on several weeks, which had now shrunk to a few days. The Soviet military authorities were therefore in a difficult situation, since, in view of conditions here, they required possibly two to three weeks more for their preperations. Over three minion men were already mobilized. I explained emphatically to Molotov how crucial speedy action of the Red Army was at this juncture. Molotov repeated that everything possible was being done to expedite matters. I got the impression that Molotov promised more yesterday than the Red Army can live up to. Then Molotov came to the political side of the matter and stated that the Soviet Government had intended to take the occasion of the further advance of German troops to declare that Poland was falling apart and that it was necessary for the Soviet Union, in consequence, to come to the aid of the Ukrainians and the White Russians "threatened" by Germany. This argument was to make the intervention of the Soviet Union plausible to the masses and at the same time avoid giving the Soviet Union the appearance of an aggressor.

---

So we can see it was indeed a major military operation, and talk about liberation of ethnic minorites is just a pretext made up by Soviet Union as admitted by Molotov himself. --Molobo 15:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] timeline

usualy list start in the ancient era en and and in the modern era right or am I wrong ?

This is probably best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Timeline, but Timeline Europe and Graphical timeline of our universe are other examples in Wikipedia of vertical timelines using a downward metaphor for earlier dates. For this particular list, the sequence has the advantage of placing the more recognised recent events at the top for immediate viewing, while the older events, which will remain less comprehensive due to less historical records, are at the end. --Zigger «º» 03:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Can Croatia's [{Operation Storm]] be counted as an invasion? In 1995 in launched a mass operation against a brakeaway country that was under a UN-protectorate; officially its territory but wanting independence - the "Republic of Serbian Krajina". The Operation resulted with the total move of the wholesome population of that state, including government and armed forces which were utterly anihalated. The Croatian Armed forces continued to chase the fleeing faction into Bosnia and Herzegovina, fighting deeper (another invasion?) another brakeaway separatist bit with the help of another domestic faction (Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina), but from another country (Bosnia and Herzegovina) - the "Serb Republic"; seizing a large part of its territory and martially anihalating yet another seperatist Bosnian-Herzegovinian entity - "West Bosnia".

Can this be counted an invasion, taking the facts that it was trying to resotre its international borders and the fact that these entities were unrecognized? --PaxEquilibrium 21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

From the current Republic of Serbian Krajina and Republika Srpska and related articles, there was no international recognition of sovereignty for these regions, so there was no international border and therefore no international invasion. Related discussion is at Talk:Republic of Serbian Krajina and Talk:Republika Srpska, which is where consensus on recognition should be established, or try editing the RSK/RS articles adding references. --Zigger «º» 05:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The two weren't internationally recognized, but they indeed were partially recognized. Then again, why isn't a military an "invasion" if it invades another entity and a brutal war campaign follows? Just before the modern world, there were no international recognitions - but invasions up to the Ancient World are listed in the article. --PaxEquilibrium 21:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The sections with ancient invasions will never be as comprehensive as recent sections, and as the the list grows they may be split out to a separate list with separate criteria for a number of reasons. (Currently the listed ancient invasions mostly relate to notable territorial/imperial expansion.) The actions that follow an invasion are not relevant to this list. The RSK and RS articles and the Dayton Agreement (with the full text linked from that article) all describe the regions as entities. The Dayton Agreement clearly distinguishes between "sovereign independent States within their international borders" and component "Entities", despite the ability of those entities to be represented as parties to the Agreement. Hopefully a more detailed discussion of "partial recognition" would be welcomed at the relevant articles' talk pages. --Zigger «º» 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

But lets say (hypothetically speaking) Serbia invades Kosovo with a full-scale military operation ("invasion") bent on securing (restoring) control of every inch of the territory (a lot of people die in the war; even more refugees, the same horrible thing yet again, blah, blah, blah...). Would that Operation be listed here? --PaxEquilibrium 20:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I have removed a reference to the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki from the list of WW2 invasions. The atomic bombings where air raids, not invasions. Because the bombings of these two cities are the only use of atomic weapons in combat thus far in human history, they do carry an unusual degree of historical significance, but not so much that the very definition of the word "invasion" can be changed to encompass them. GutterMonkey 23:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Somebody put Hiroshima and Nakasaki back in the list of WW2 invasions. They do not belong there. I have deleted them again, and would ask whoever thinks they should be there to explain their reasoning. GutterMonkey 08:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)