US Empire Goals? Only 22 Countries Have Never Been Invaded By Britain

While America's war-making budget continues to grow - even as signs appears of its empire-building-efforts being slowed; it is perhaps worth reflecting on the last empire...Britain - which has been far from a stranger to conflict and colonization over the years...

Astoundingly, as the chart above shows, there are only 22 countries which have never been invaded by the Brits.

Infographic: Only 22 countries have never been invaded by Britain | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

According to the book "All the Countries We’ve Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To", there are only 22 countries Britain never invaded throughout the course of history.

There aren't many gaps on the map, but some of the more notable include Sweden, Belarus and Vatican City.

Tags

Comments

evokanivo Mon, 02/26/2018 - 04:18 Permalink

What is this shit - am I reading RT? Might as well declare an article "world history is full of bad things". No shit. I am enormously critical of US and NATO foreign policy, but zerohedge is almost unreadable at this point. As if there aren't enough current injusticies going on, now we gotta dig up decades-old history.

 

EDIT: USA is apparently not #1. We need to fix this, pronto. /sarc for the idiots

CuttingEdge Four Star Mon, 02/26/2018 - 05:14 Permalink

I wouldn't usually defend my ancestors for all manner of uncouth shit committed by them way before I was an itch an my old man's ball bag, but...

8 years as an expat school kid in South Africa having Boer War concentration camps rammed down my throat on a daily basis (snowflakes have no fucking clue) and usually coming out on top (at least verbally - got the shit kicked out of me by multiples on a few occasions), is probably what gave me a penchant for geo-political history in the first place.

 

Now, would it not be obvious to assume that had the UK not invaded and occupied many parts of the world, someone else would have? At the time when navigation came good? So let's imaging a world where Drake hadn't kicked the Spanish Armada into touch, Edward III at Crécy and  Henry V at Agincourt hadn't inflicted humiliations the French will never lose from their psyche, and Wellington delivered the coup de gras at Waterloo.

Had fate played a different hand, and say for instance the French or Spanish had colonised the world, just exactly where would it be right now?

 

Look at South America - Spanish and Portugese. A real bastion of developed nations. Not. Asset stripped, raped and pillaged at the outset, and not a whole lot achieved while they were around to bring on those nations.

And the French? A fucking disaster wherever they dropped anchor (Vietnam being only one of many examples). They considered themselves overseers and the indigenous populations slaves the world over. Fact - just ask anyone who served in 'Nam.

Then there's the Brits - look at their former colonies' standings in the world, and compare. Barring Africa, where every country goes down the shitter the minute they get one man one vote (tribal dominance and nepotism - rocket science it aint), you have Oz, New Zealand, Malaysia, India, Canada (note Trudeau is a French name) and the good old US of A. For starters.

 

So next time you bemoan those evil bastard Brits for conquering the world at the time when it was feasible to do so, just thank fuck they came good, and it wasn't the French or Spanish that came out on top in Europe.

In reply to by Four Star

misnomer00 CuttingEdge Mon, 02/26/2018 - 06:38 Permalink

I'm an indian and I agree with you. The raping pillaging and burning at the stakes done by Portuguese and French was as bad as the muzzies.

The Brits weren't as explicitly violent, but did loot our land dry, killed millions in famines, and uprooted all forms of system (worst affected was our education system) and Industry. Made an exporter into an importer. You see, poverty is worse than death. Poverty + death is the worst of course.

At least the muzzies had the balls to wage wars and conquer territories, the Brits were just pussies, who entered through the backdoor.

In reply to by CuttingEdge

bh2 CuttingEdge Mon, 02/26/2018 - 06:39 Permalink

Agree on all points. As to the French colonization effort, just look to Haiti as the fruit of their works. Right next door on the same island, Dominican Republic prospers (despite being a former Spanish slave colony).

It has been alleged that Maggie Thatcher once addressed a convocation of South American leaders with this observation: "the problem for you people is that you weren't colonized by the British."

If she didn't actually say it, she likely would have. And she would have been right. As you are right also.

It is fair to say virtually all (but not all) former British colonies would today acknowledge they were left better off than before they were occupied. By contrast, virtually all (but not all) former colonies of other great powers were operated as slave states left in ruin and chaos.

Perhaps one of the most egregious examples is the nightmare formerly known as the Belgian Congo. Now well known as perhaps the largest of all sh*thole countries.

In reply to by CuttingEdge

Analyse2 bh2 Mon, 02/26/2018 - 15:10 Permalink

" just look to Haiti as the fruit of their works. Right next door on the same island, Dominican Republic prospers (despite being a former Spanish slave colony). "

It is inappropriate to compare the economic situation of these 2 countries as a result of 2 types of colonization:

- Haiti is independant since 1804 - and should therefore start to be a little responsible for his own economic situation...

- The Dominican Republic’s first Independence came only in 1844. Then the Dominican Republic experienced a return to colonial status before permanently ousting Spanish rule during the Dominican War of Restoration of 1865. A United States occupation lasted eight years between 1916 and 1924, and a subsequent calm and prosperous six-year period under Horacio Vásquez Lajara was followed by the dictatorship of Rafael Leónidas Trujillo until 1961. A civil war in 1965, the country's last, was ended by a new, but brief, U.S. military occupation.

 

In reply to by bh2

squid CuttingEdge Mon, 02/26/2018 - 06:47 Permalink

In short, yes.

 

I thank my stars my slavic ancestors moved to Victorian Canad when they did. British common, uncorruptable civil service at that time and a cultural confidence the world has never seen. The sun never set on the British Empire. KIng and country.

 

It is no accident that the slavs that immegrated to brazil were basically still plowing their filed with horses in the eighties.

 

Yes, yes, colonialism but just remember, power abhores a vacum.

 

Squid

In reply to by CuttingEdge

Analyse2 CuttingEdge Mon, 02/26/2018 - 08:12 Permalink

" So let's imaging a world where Edward III at Crécy and  Henry V at Agincourt hadn't inflicted humiliations the French will never lose from their psyche "

Historical references are sometimes dangerous, and you only omit a few things:

England may have won at Crecy and Agincourt – but in the 100 years war, which lasted in fact 116 year from 1337 to 1453, the English finally lost to the French, who had their revenge at Orleans, Patay and Castillon.

In 1453, 22 years after Jeanne d’Arc death, the last major battle of the Hundred Years War, the battle of Castillon cost the English around 4,000 killed, wounded, and captured as well as one of their most notable field commanders. For the French, losses were only around 100. Advancing to Bordeaux, Charles VII captured the city on October 19 after a three-month siege.

The end of the Hundred Years' War saw all English territory on the Continent reduced to the Pale of Calais, while France moved toward being a united and centralized state. 

In reply to by CuttingEdge

Salzburg1756 CuttingEdge Mon, 02/26/2018 - 09:06 Permalink

" and Wellington delivered the coup de gras at Waterloo."

Coup de grace (= stroke of mercy; a blow putting a dying person out of his misery)

And the ce of grace is pronounced as an s.

You've been watching too much sports on TV where the phrase is regularly mispronounced because of its similarity to Mardi Gras (= Fat Tuesday) in which the s of gras is not pronounced.

In reply to by CuttingEdge

Endgame Napoleon CuttingEdge Mon, 02/26/2018 - 10:38 Permalink

I hate to upvote this because the French and the Spanish excel at the most important thing: art. They were the worst colonizers, though, possibly because art people believe in the possibility of perfection. A perfect order is achievable on a tableau rasa, a blank page, but the nations they conquered were not blank pages. They had long histories, with values in conflict with the ideas of the French and the Spanish. It is not that the British colonizers were great. They were snobs, but they let the indigenous populations play a role in government, rather than trying to impose a [perfect], theoretical, British pattern on foreign countries. So, when those countries gained their independence, they were more ready to govern themselves.

In reply to by CuttingEdge

ACP Four Star Mon, 02/26/2018 - 05:18 Permalink

Funny how Western Europe, which is 3% of the land mass of the world, controlled the brutals for hundreds of years, then gave it up for some liberal bullshit. Now their women will be raped into the stone age because of their "tolerance". What a bunch of morons.

You don't conquer an inferior civilization, subjugate it, profit off it for centuries, then tell them, "OK, you can immigrate to our countries, vote in our elections, and rape our country," and expect peace.

I guess they didn't read "The Prince".

 

In reply to by Four Star

keep the basta… ACP Mon, 02/26/2018 - 05:41 Permalink

"Conquer an inferior civilisation".  India was so far ahead of england when it was invaded, it had massive international trade which exceeded all others at the time.

England's superiority as you call it was military invasions etc. englands last piece was the Churchill starvation of 3 million Indians during he and ((mrs)) from New Jersey bombed the German supply lines for food to civilians and internments.

even after hundreds of years of occupation in part and harassment the Irish were literate as the " superior" illiterate English slavers ran them down and sold them to illiterate Americans 

whats worse the English have a weird smell.

In reply to by ACP

earleflorida Rubicon Mon, 02/26/2018 - 14:46 Permalink

Sweden had iron but the charcoal from its forest was to expensive to compete.

Germany alone had iron and coal in abundant mines but no (transportation) waterways to bring it to market.

[And], France has Iron, but no fuel (coal).

In the late 17th, entire 18th, 19th century 'Cotton' was the most valuable crop in the world!

In reply to by Rubicon

thunderchief evokanivo Mon, 02/26/2018 - 04:29 Permalink

One thing I draw from past Empire is the people are a fraction of their ancestors.  Most are not worth a shit and that includes the UK and USA.

Egypt, Greece, Italy, recently Japan and Germany.   Once they lose, they go all queer stupid and third world.

Fat, stupid, hooked on meds, politically correct and incompetent. 

You can pretty much tell who is in line to be the next third world wonder.

 

In reply to by evokanivo

ItsAllBollocks Mon, 02/26/2018 - 04:19 Permalink

England did it with rifles under the Union Jack.
Israel did it with usury under the Red Shield.
America did it with proxies under questionable circumstances.

... and now America is withdrawing to the Asia-Pacific region under who knows what pretenses and who knows what outcome.

Yankee go home!

Endgame Napoleon ItsAllBollocks Mon, 02/26/2018 - 11:09 Permalink

Oh, no, no, no, America is not a colonizer.

Before WWII, we were isolationists, hesitant to enter WWI until pressured into it by the bickering aristocrats of Europe and, again, hesitant to enter WWII until invaded by Imperial Japan, the country that bombed Pearl Harbor, causing the US to enter the war. After WWII, the US did not colonize the conquered territories. We pulled out of Europe and Japan, quickly, leaving them to govern themselves. 

Due to fears of communist expansion, after WWII, the US spent boatloads of taxpayer money and lost countless men, fighting in foreign civil wars to prevent one side of a far-flung, foreign nation from being taken over by the communist-infested other side. This was a mistake, humbly admitted by many American leaders. But we pulled out of those countries; we did not colonize them.

In recent decades, we acted in alliance [with other countries] to prevent one Arab country from overtaking another Arab country in the Gulf War. We defended our nation when it was attacked by radical Islamic terrorists, a group of student visa holders treated very well in America that committed a mass murder of 3,000 American civilians on September 11, 2001. Did America’s leaders take it too far, extending a necessary, defensive military attack on Afghanistan, the country that harbored the mass-murdering terrorists, to other countries? Yes.

Nation building was a mistake. It does not work. It was not extensive enough or long enough in duration to be labeled colonization, however, AND, unlike the colonization pursued by other countries, the US did not seize the natural resources of the countries where it tried nation-building projects. A few US companies did made bank on the war clean-up, but the oil was left intact for the native populations.

 

In reply to by ItsAllBollocks

Fireman Mon, 02/26/2018 - 04:26 Permalink

The good news however, is that the evil anglozionazi beast is mortally wounded and can only "save" itself and its filthy blood splattered IOU Petroscrip Saudi Mercan "reserve" currency toilet paper fiat filth dollah by blowing up the planet. No doubt Mr. Bear and Mr. Dragon will turn Shitville to glass if that is what's required.

 

Onward to the inevitable and long overdue civil war reloaded in Slumville USSA.

 

5 Stages of Collap$e:

Stage 1: Financial collapse. Faith in “business as usual” is lost.

Stage 2: Commercial collapse. Faith that “the market shall provide” is lost.

Stage 3: Political collapse. Faith that “the government will take care of you” is lost.

Stage 4: Social collapse. Faith that “your people will take care of you” is lost.

Stage 5: Cultural collapse. Faith in “the goodness of humanity” is lost.

 

http://cluborlov.blogspot.de/p/the-five-stages-of-collapse.html

kellys_eye Mon, 02/26/2018 - 04:54 Permalink

I wonder how much better off many of those 'invaded' countries would be if Britain was STILL in charge?

Britain, as I recall from history, not only took FROM those countries, they also took TOO them and their standard of living increased exponentially.

Endgame Napoleon Byte Me Mon, 02/26/2018 - 11:21 Permalink

Due to the motherload of hate-filled hyperbole flung at the USA by many nations across the globe, our leaders are NOT doing US citizens a favor by enslaving this country in debt, making us beholden to foreigners who hold that debt, and shipping the middle-class jobs to foreign countries, even though a few Americans have enriched themselves and theirs that way via the cheap foreign labor. It has helped to build up the miltary might of foreign countries, as well as increasing their economic strength. It has made the vast majority of Americans much more vulnerable to all of that irrational, inaccurate, anti-American hate. Far from colonizing, US globalists have strengthened the power of foreign countries, while weakening their own country.

In reply to by Byte Me