Talk:List of invasions

hi

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

Israeli invasion of Gaza

The Gaza strip invasion in 2009 by Israel happened on 3 January. I added it. --SamB135 (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

---

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

---

"Israel-Lebanon War" I added that Lebanon invaded Israel as well, as Hezbollah soldiers crossed into Israel, sparking the war. Hezbollah is a militia sanctioned by the Lebanese gov't, and whose political arm sits in Cabinet. They're irregular forces, but they are certainly a military of Lebanon. 99.226.47.35 14:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

" 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)

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)

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)

List of Invasions within Russia

Civil wars are not included in the 'Big 4' invasions of Russia or invasions by Poland, Sweden, France and Germany or Parts of the following large-scale invasions Time of Troubles (the Livonian Wars with Polish-Lithuanian Alliance), Northern War (Sweden-Denmark alliance), Campaign of 1812 (Napoleonic wars), and Barbarossa (Axis Powers).

This along with the crimean war, the german battle of ice (Crusades), and mongol invasion were excluded because these territories were most likely changed and regained as part of russia in the past or at some point. Meaning they lost and then won indirectly or not, by a huge battle for territory...eventually losing in a battle reemergence. They were not permanent invasions, more like occupations for invading territories while the big 4 were planned invasions with equally large armies. No large army has ever invaded Russia successfully or reached the capital of Moscow successfully for that matter mostly because of weather and landscape or the culmination of intention for mass genocide indirectly. These were small invasions, or indirect invasions as opposed to its full scale invasion at the time. They are disputed, but I think Mongol invasions were more of an expansion because no sides could catch up hence conquering, never beaten, scorched earth ala alexander the great in other territories (considered full-scale in other territories). They only won one battle, and were annihilated in the process. -Most Modern invasions are occupations because of the unfair advantage of weaponry or sides competing against one another. They would fall under an indirect invasion, like an occupation instead of a full-scale 'star wars' invasion. This is an interesting fact, because an invasion with an equally strong side would create a deciding factor. It can be dangerous to so-called Society or a way of life and is unpredictable. Many other territorial invasions or Modern wars were predictable (when one side conquers without losing until he is weak and beaten) sad to say. WWII doesnt fall in this category because large wars for or in territory were won and lost changing policy and events in the future forever.

Definition of Invasions

• Territorial Invasion (Indirect, short-term or disputed invasions) - battles, skirmishes, tiny 'blitzkrieg' tactics such as guerrilla warefare, pillage and plunder or raids resulting in small indirect occupations. No competing armies on either side. Resulting in no significant territorial expansion or country-wide invasion.

• Full-Scale Invasion - enormous field battles within the territory with equally large armies facing off against one another. Resulting in Expansion, usually enormous and permanent.

eg Battle of the Kalka River was countered by the Russian victories in the Battle of Kulikovo and the Great stand on the Ugra river in the Mongolian Invasion. The Crimean war was countered by the Russo-Turkish War for a small portion of land. A successful modern invasion (after the Roman Empire or the Medieval era) of large armies with permanent territory gain would be the invasions of the middle-east by the ottoman empire against western europe or the union invasion of the csa in the american civil war and previous american invasions. These wars would be called full-scale except they were competing for small portions of land with only two large battles. The Mongols would have won, except they were competing for land with only two wars fought within the territory as well, and the first war destroyed there numbers, hence ransacking, and pillaging like the Carthaginians did with no territory gain. It must have been chaotic. Anyways, I consider two fronts, a territorial invasion. As for the definition, more than two large fronts (with 10,000+ regime within territory) is disputed as full scale invasion.

Other

As for the post above this one. American Revolution is a full-scale invasion indirectly not-like the Mongol one. It was really because it was a competition for territory. I consider the American Indian Wars an invasion though too because it changed the landscape. There were like 3 armies, and the Indians were considerably turkish. The indians also joined sides (usually with the french) as well. Anyways it was an invasion because it was a precurser to the American Civil War (american indian wars). Anything American is considered skirmishes, field battles or hit and run tactics hence guerrilla warefare a turkish trait taken from the Mongols so it can be disputed I think. I consider it an invasion because the 1.)landscape changed 2.)large battles occurred with competing countries. Turkish and Greek-Arabic entanglements are deep rooted in history anyways. Hence it culminated into the Civil War. American Expansion itself is an invasion or American settlements. The Indians just lost so its not considered a war (see post above). Christians killed government officials regularly during expansion. What makes Russia so interesting is that it is far too old to know how it was established. So far as I know, any civilization established by war will be destroyed by it. The Romans were not even established by war either but rather for getting even for it. Most european nations were equally made the same, by total rampage such is Poland and France/Germany for its small kingdoms of royal families established (establishments of society and culture basically Frankreich WAS Germania). A real test to countries like the United States in the coming hundreds of years. We all know the fate of Carthage.--Murriemir (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This question of what technically constitutes an invasion is an interesting one. Discussions like this keep me on Wikipedia. There are dictionary definitions of course. But dictionaries fail to describe subtleties and nuances. For example:

• As discussed above, is armed suppression of what is perceived as an insurrection against a lawfully constituted state an invasion? (Eg, American Revolutionary War, the Chechnyan war -if I spelt it right-,the English counter-attack against Prince Charles Stuart in 1742).
• Is the incursion into territory to which the aggressor has, or claims to have,a lawful claim, an invasion? Or when the aggressor has a mandate in international law to act? (Eg., the incursion of King Henry V into France to claim the throne, the 1991 Iraqi attack upon Kuwait- Iraq claimed it was part of Iraq- , and the subsequent counter-attack on the part of the US and its allies, mandated by the UN)
• Is an armed incursion to attempt to expel an occupying power an invasion? (Eg., the UK counter-attack against Argentina in the Falklands)
• Is an incursion into the territory of one side during a civil war an invasion? Can a state invade its own sovereign soil?

It seems to me that the answers depend upon who is recording the history and censoring the media.The names of wars tend to reflect the mindsets of those who have the most to benefit by naming them. For example, to the British, the war between the colonists of the 13 colonies was a rebellion. To the colonists it became a war of independence.In recent times, most of the world viewed the incursion into Iraq by the US-lead Coalition of the Willing (a strange name, as if they weren't willing, they wouldn't be in coalition) as an invasion. But at the time the US called it a war of liberation, or a crusade for democracy.In common parlance 'invasion' denotes unjust aggression. Which, of course, is not always the case. I think we should only include military events in the list which are popularly termed invasions, citing sources. We should bear in mind however that different states and peoples have different names for wars, depending on how they view it. And we should note that in the list.--Gazzster (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

These were skirmishes, occupations, not full-scale invasions. The Americas had competing armies for changed territory so it was a full scale invasion having that it changed the landscape forever. Competing for small portions of land is not a large invasion. So you're right. 1.)Large Armies that occupy territory without governance is a political or insignificant historical invasion 2.)Large armies who invade territory and in doing so change the landscape is an invasion. So the first phrase was Civil Wars. Civil Wars arent invasions unless they change territory. That would be an occupied invasion, incursion, (because civil wars always require neutrality between opposing powers within its territory) etc. or if one side constantly wins without any hostility, then its not a full-scale invasion but an occupation as was the case with Kuwait and Mongolia. Mongolia is not a full-scale invasion because they only encountered an opposing force once and lost two great battles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.240.174 (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

They were re-added, along with a bunch of other air raids, and I've just removed them. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor not an invasion

By the same logic as above, the Japanese air raid on Pearl Harbor was just that - an air raid! Not by any stretch of the imagination an invasion. I have deleted it. This is an easy case, but I think this problem of definition fatally flaws this list which should probably be deleted. Kim dent brown 13:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Invasion of Thailand by Vietnam?

I am very confused by the 1979–1988 invasions of Thailand by Vietnam entry, which redirects to the History of Thailand since 1973. I don't think Thailand was invaded by Vietnam at all during the Vietnam War (unless you count refugees.) On the other hand Thailand sent a small task force into Vietnam, which I am not sure if it can be counted as an invasion either. The only major conflict that happened in Thailand during the time was the battle between the government and the Communist Party of Thailand, which consist mostly of Thai revolutionaries/guerrillas. Of course, since I'm a Thai myself, my "official" history book may not be accurate (this humiliating defeat never made it into Thai history books.) Still, if no one provide any evidence, I'll delete it. - DTRY 01:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

IP editors have been inserting all sorts of Vietnam-related stuff to this page which aren't actually invasions. Be bold in removing stuff that strikes you as blatantly inaccurate. Cheers, cab 01:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Confusion in terminology

There's a lot of confusion here. The current definition is : "An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity." However, such action must always be placed in context. The terms "invasion", "offensive war", "attack against enemy territory" do not necessarily signify the same thing! The war started by Hitler's Germany against the Soviet Union in 1941 was an offensive war. And Germany invaded indeed the USSR. But, when the Soviets, in the course of the war, entered Germany's ground, that was not an "invasion" but the continuation of the war on the enemy's ground. (Can we seriously suggest the opposite? I.e. that the Soviets should have halted at the frontier?) When Saddam Hussein, in 1980, attacked a contested ground in the Gulf (note that if the ground indeed belonged to Iraq, there was no invasion), the Iranians considered the matter an ivasion. And a war was started, in the course, of which, the ground of each party was occupied by the other (and then liberated) in turn, many times over. Another example : When the Allies landed in Normandy, in 1944, the land on which they landed "belonged" to Germany, since France had officially surrendered. We cannot seriously refer to any of these tides of war as "invasions". The Gnome (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And another point- is it correct to speak of a nation's counter-incursion into its own violated sovereign soil an invasion? Example: the UK and the Falklands. Isn't this rather a defensive action?--Gazzster (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Afghan War

It's a common misnomer, but the Soviet action in Afghanistan shouldn't be called an "invasion." Dictionary.com defines the word as "infringement by intrusion" and "an act or instance of... entering as an enemy." The official Afghan government at the time was aligned with the USSR (and the Afghan and Soviet forces acted side-by-side), so when the Soviets came in, there was no violation of the Afghan border. The USSR action was aimed at supporting the Afghan government, not opposing it. If my point is understood, I would like to remove that example from the list. 65.100.0.172 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, wrong on so many counts. [1] far from being invited in, the incumbent ruler of the country had refused Soviet "assistance", the Russians invaded, removed the Afghan president and installed a puppet Government. A classic Soviet invasion of a satellite that did not fall into line. Justin talk 21:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Turkish invasions

I've removed three links from the article. First one is the 2008 Turkish Incursion to Nothern Iraq, because it was not an invasion; it was a 8-day limited operation. Also there was almost no contact with civilians, and no armed force had entered populated areas. Other two points are 1921 invasion of Anatolia and 1922 Invasion of Smyrna. Turkish Republic is the predecessor of Ottoman Empire, and the Anatolian land including Izmir (Smyrna) was invaded by Greece as a result of Sevres Treaty. But the 1921 and 1922 wars between Turkey and Greece was not an invasion stuff. We cannot say "Iraq invaded Iraq" if they fight back US troops and force them to leave, as the Iraqi land belongs to Iraq by internatinal agreements. Khutuck (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 invasion of Ecuador by Colombian military

I have removed 2008 invasion of Ecuador by Colombian military because it was a raid not an invasion--EZ1234 (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)