Has your country ever invaded other country or been invaded?

  • Fernando

    Senior Member
    Spain, Spanish
    Tatzingo said:
    But it was a peaceful migration, not an invasion? And it is only legend, right?

    Tatz.
    You are right. Anyway, Outsider use to be well informed. POssibly he has more data than me.

    Well, obviously "peaceful" is difficult to know when talking about those old days. Possibly most of what we called "invasions" (as an example, Celtics moving to Iberian Peninsula) was mostly peaceful, while many migrations were performed with the weapons at hand.
     

    Outsider

    Senior Member
    Portuguese (Portugal)
    Fernando said:
    You are right. Anyway, Outsider use to be well informed. POssibly he has more data than me.

    Well, obviously "peaceful" is difficult to know when talking about those old days. Possibly most of what we called "invasions" (as an example, Celtics moving to Iberian Peninsula) was mostly peaceful, while many migrations were performed with the weapons at hand.
    There's been a lot of discussion, and no consensus, over whether the so-called Indo-European invasion, for example, was an all-out invasion, complete with war and genocide, or a peaceful, gradual migration. I'm sure it's very difficult to be sure, after so much time.
    I imagine that the same applies to the Celtic migrations (invasions?) We simply have little way of knowing.
     

    ireney

    Modistra
    Greek Greece Mod of Greek, CC and CD
    Well let's see: Greece's history is not as long as China's but it's pretty long anyway (compared with many other countries' history at least).

    It would be impossible not to have been in both ends of the stick so to speak.You can skip the history and go at the end if you like

    Oh and I apologise for any bad English. Still too hot and my brain feels melted and runny.

    Ancient History first

    We started by invading what is now called Greece :)

    We obviously shouldn't but then it's IS a bit difficult for all of us to actually find where we came from and go back there. Not to mention that there isn't anyone to apologise to for that invasion these days.

    Then we have the Greek city-states-colonies. I don't know if that counts as invasion since we were more interested in small pieces of land than the whole chunk. I do know that when we couldn't persuade the locals to sort of let us build one we forcefully 'persuaded' them. Once again, it's kind of hard to find the guys and apologise to them (not to mention that, in case such as i.e. Marseilles they are sort of proud it seems for the Greek 'beginnings of their town or so I'm told)

    We then have the Persian wars. Now, in danger of getting ahead of my time-line, Greeks and Persians have been ateach others throats for simply ages (up to and including Middle Ages).

    Alexander the Great (and I know that could cause some trouble, but bear with me, even if you believe that ancient Macedonians were not Greek, Alexander attacked as head of the Greeks) invaded a LOT of countries. As far as I know we have apologised to Iran for the despicable way he behaved in Persepolis (or sort of: I seem to remember that when our President went to Iran and saw the ruins said something like "whoops! sorry").

    Hellenistic times? We didn't invade further but we weren't all that nice either (see Jews)

    All of this ended when we were terminally invaded by the Romans


    Medieval Times

    Byzantine Empire. What can I say? Invading and being invaded by pretty much everyone.

    All of this ended when we were terminally invaded by the Ottomans (Turks)

    Modern Times

    Mainly invaded. We invaded only once (Balkan Wars is a bit of muddy so I won't go there). Just after WWI we had the brilliant idea to invade Turkey. Got our backsides really kicked. Nevermind what followed.
    --------------------------
    Now, as to hard feelings: Greece and Turkey. Lots and lots of bad blood there. Mainly between governments though. Hot heads exist in both countries I'm afraid. Nationalism is a global disease.

    The reason is simple: Greece and Bulgaria i.e. who have have been at each other's throat ever since the ancestors of the Bulgarians first arrived in the neighbourhood have lately resolved all the issues between the two countries.

    NO APOLOGY. I mean we'd be both buried under a pile of apologies if we had to say "sorry" for each time one of us committed atrocities to the other side.

    Turkey now. Well, we still have issues with Turkey. If they are ever resolved hard feelings will go away. If not they will persist. All the other reasons (attrocities etc etc) will soon go away. They have in other cases they will in this case too.
     

    maxiogee

    Banned
    imithe
    Fernando said:
    I would say there is a legend about Celtics from Ireland migrating to Asturias and Galicia (NW Spain).
    a) Are we now regarding a "migration" as an invasion?
    b) Are we now regarding "a legend" as factual source material?
     

    Fernando

    Senior Member
    Spain, Spanish
    maxiogee said:
    a) Are we now regarding a "migration" as an invasion?
    b) Are we now regarding "a legend" as factual source material?
    a) If you have read the thread, I have said before that the border between invasion and migration is not always clear.

    b) I do not remember to have said so. But, incidentally, according Outsider, maybe it is not a legend.
     

    modus.irrealis

    Senior Member
    English, Canada
    Outsider said:
    There's been a lot of discussion, and no consensus, over whether the so-called Indo-European invasion, for example, was an all-out invasion, complete with war and genocide, or a peaceful, gradual migration.
    Or simply an artefact of the belief of 19th century philologists that the only way languages could spread was for their speakers to do so. I've read that some believe there was no invasion/migration, but that the language just spread through contact.

    Thymios
     

    Outsider

    Senior Member
    Portuguese (Portugal)
    An interesting argument, although how many languages do you know which spread purely through harmless contact before the Industrial Revolution?... Still, this is not the place to discuss the spread of Indo-European.

    With respect to the Celts, what triggered my remark were episodes such as the following:

    It is clear that some British people migrated to the continent, which resulted in the region of Armorica in north-west Gaul becoming known as Brittany. There is also evidence of British migration to Hispania. The dating of these migrations is uncertain, but recent studies suggest that the migration from south-western Britain to Brittany began as early as AD 300 and was largely ended by 500. [...]

    source
    Granted, this late migration does not seem to have been too massive. On the other hand, it was not the first migration of Celts into Iberia, either (although the previous one seems to have originated in Central Europe, rather than the British Isles).
     

    tvdxer

    Senior Member
    Minnesota, U.S.A. - English
    The U.S.

    Been invaded? I suppose you could call the War of 1812 an "invasion", maybe 9/11, but I think both would be a bit of a stretch. Otherwise, no.

    Invaded others? Yup, Iraq most recently of course
     

    GenJen54

    Senior Member
    USA - English
    almostfreebird said:
    Don't you remember You started (stirred).
    I can't help but think you are Fire Stirrters (by Stephen Edwin King).
    There is no need for accusations or name-calling. Coconutpalm was not trying to stir anything. She was asking a simple question. Many forer@s have answered for the sake of their own countries, and have also pointed out what is stated as historical fact. Taking a harsh look at the shortcomings of our own countries and their histories is a necessary embarrassment, I'm afraid.

    Accusatory finger-pointing only makes things worse.

    This is a forum that is open to discussions of issues pertaining to many things - including politics. Please see the CD Guidelines if you need further confirmation of this.

    You have been offered many opportunities to explain your point of view and tell us why Coconutpalm is wrong. Doing such would be helpful to everyone as it would provide a level of personal insight we cannot find reading web links and editorials.

    I am not proud of my country's history as an "invader," and the list of countries we've invaded, especially given my country's young age - is long, indeed. The fact remains, there are few countries who can remain blameless or innocent. The choice belongs to us whether we choose to carry resentment, or let the mistakes of our ancestors teach us valuable lessons about how we should carry on our own lives.
     

    maxiogee

    Banned
    imithe
    GenJen54 said:
    The fact remains, there are few countries who can remain blameless or innocent.
    I'd doubt that.
    Africa springs to mind, there are 53 countries there and few were into the invasion industry.
    Central and South America?
     

    almostfreebird

    Senior Member
    Born and raised in Japón, soy japonés
    GenJen54 said:
    This is a forum that is open to discussions of issues pertaining to many things - including politics. Please see the CD Guidelines if you need further confirmation of this.
    I just expressed my feeling after that big smiling mark by somebody who started this arrested my attention.

    ok. I leave here, thats my choice.
     

    maxiogee

    Banned
    imithe
    almostfreebird said:
    I'm not going to say you are an agitator or propagandist,
    but I thought this place was supposed to be for cultural discussion
    and you are almost talking political things,
    if you continue like this it's going to be very unhealthy
    unless you are irrelevant to this direct topic (china vs. japan)
    because it's a very current political issue.
    And I don't want to be unhealthy here,
    so I'm going to stay away from this thread.
    I will read though if somebody post.
    My initial reaction to carefully studying this post, which I had skipped over at first glance, is "the truth often hurts".

    Coconutpalm made no claims about the invasion of China by Japan in the Second World War, merely mentioning that it happened - and later mentioning that China itself invaded other countries also. If that is too "political" then that's unfortunate.

    Then I began to wonder what almostfreebird meant by "I don't want to be unhealthy here" - that's not an expression one hears often. Surely we are mature enough here to discuss what were brief wartime events.

    Yes, the observant amongst us will have noticed that I am not prepared to go into details myself about what transpired over many, many years between Ireland and our nearest neighbour - this is because there are always those ready to misread anything said about that relationship. I am quite prepared to discuss it in private with anyone who wishes, but I'm "not going there" in public. ;)
     

    hedonist

    Senior Member
    america
    danielfranco said:
    Ah, Mexico... It stands as a solitary figure in the sense that it has never carried out a successful invasion
    (as far as I know, but how far is that, really? No one knows...)
    The one country I am sure that Mexico did try to invade was the erstwhile Republic of Texas. Then, enter Sam Huston. Remember the Alamo, and all that jazz...
    Back in its pre-Colombus history, the nations within what is now known as central Mexico would invade each other every other Tuesday, it seems, never holding the territories for long... Until the Aztecs (Mexicas) arrived in the scene and "smooshed" everyone else and imposed their order, there was no Mexico. The Aztecs invented Mexico. And then the Spanish came and "smooshed" them into oblivion....
    I think that, even now, the defeatist and despondent attitude prevalent in many areas of the Mexican culture (mainly the State) might be traced back to the very definite Spanish conquest and almost obliteration of the Mexicans over five hundred years ago.
    I highly recommend this book:

    Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest

    http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/LatinAmerican/?ci=0195160770&view=usa



    Matthew Restall

    According to historical consensus, the Spanish conquest of the New World was a cataclysm in which superior European technology and organization overwhelmed Native American civilizations. In this daring revisionist critique, Penn State historian Restall describes a far more complex process in which Indians were central participants on both sides of the struggle. Far from regarding the Spaniards as gods, Restall argues, Indians offered a variety of shrewd, pragmatic responses to the invaders while advancing their own political agendas.

    danielfranco said:
    The Aztecs invented Mexico.
    Just the name. The territory that the “Aztecs” ruled is only a small section of current day Mexico. The country that is now referred to as Mexico is a modern invention.

    danielfranco said:
    And then the Spanish came and "smooshed" them into oblivion....
    I think that, even now, the defeatist and despondent attitude prevalent in many areas of the Mexican culture (mainly the State) might be traced back to the very definite Spanish conquest and almost obliteration of the Mexicans over five hundred years ago.
    This articles touches on that very point;

    http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1091714398

    The idea that the Aztecs were deceived or betrayed, Restall implied, may gain them a kind of moral revenge in hindsight - but it also deprives them of a full-fledged role in their own history. The powerlessness of defeat can become a paralyzing and angry burden if no alternatives are presented.

    Scholars increasingly argue that tragic accounts of submission and conquest, beyond a certain point, deny people the conviction they are in control of their own lives. Much the same debate has occurred in recent decades about the history of slavery, so that the bulk of research today explores how Africans and their ancestors resisted and survived enslavement, not how they were crushed by it.
    I’m in full agreement with the comments above.

    I still don’t know why in this day and age a genocide (deliberate or not) or slaughter of millions of innocent human beings (not all Native Americans practiced human sacrifice and even that is disputed or at least the extent of it which is argued that the invading foreigners exaggerated to justify atrocities committed to “civilize” the savages) is lauded as a great achievement. As long as that type of selective recollection of historical events is touted as accurate and truthful it’s not surprising that the descendants of those “conquered” people continue to have the despondent and defeatists attitude that you’ve mentioned.
     

    Aldin

    Member
    Bosnian
    My country never.But it was invaded in many occasions throught the history:
    first the Romans,then Slavs,then Avars,then Bosnia was a kingdom and then it was conquered by Turks(1463),then Austrians and then Nazi and finally Bosnia was free in Yugoslavia.And then Serbs invaded Bosnia(1991/2) and finally Bosnia gets its independence in 1995.All those conquerers left something good in Bosnia,their trace(serbs only destruction and lot of pain)
     

    Tensai

    Member
    Chinese Cantonese, Hong Kong
    Tatzingo said:

    There is a claim that China annexed Hong Kong in 1997 and is seeking the same result with regards Taiwan.... (see edit)

    If I remember my history, Hong Kong was Chinese territory annexed to the British at the end of the Opium wars, for a period close to 100 years. China didn't annex Hong Kong at all, rather, territory ceded/capitulated by them was restored to their government in 1997.

    I don't want to launch accusations but this one article sounds more like propanganda to me....
    hahahaha, i didn't know that my hometown Hong Kong was annexed by my home country China, this is news to me:D
    British RETURNED Hong Kong to China in 1997
    if someone wants to spread propanganda, atleast get the facts right
     

    emma42

    Senior Member
    British English
    One of the most shameful acts of that appalling woman, Margaret Thatcher, was to lead this country's military into war with Argentina over the Malvinas/Falklands. The Government had taken practically no notice of the Malvinas for decades, and hardly any ordinary Briton had even heard of the islands.

    But because Mrs Thatcher was determined to destroy the Trades Union Movement from before the onset of her premiership (plans had been hatched and deployed for years) and set in motion other destructive and anti-working class measures, she saw the "invasion" of the Malvinas by Argentina as a golden opportunity to deflect attention from what she was really about (as if she needed to - her stealth tactics and dirty tricks were second to none) and cynically sent troops to their deaths and to effect the deaths of Argentine troops. She then lied about her reasons, including one particularly infamous lie about the sinking of the Argentine ship, The General Belgrano. She insisted that this ship was in "British" waters and was therefore a legitimate target. She was held to account over this lie by an ordinary voter in a TV phone- in, which was riveting to listen to.
     

    CrazyIvan

    Senior Member
    Taiwan-Taiwanese
    But I have to differ with you somewhere:The more I can talk to them, the more I think I can understand the way they act.
    True, but I can never understand the way they acted.
    oh, coconutpalm. If you are familiar Chinese culture, we have a word say "鑑古知今"which means if you understand well about the history in the past, you have no problem to figure the things at present.

    I believe vice versa can work as well.

    Let me explain Japanese a little bit according to my understanding.(since I am not born Japanese so what I say may be wrong, please correct me if someone understand it in another way.)

    They will consider things prudentially before execution, however, if they decide to put things into practice, they would do whatever it cost to win it.

    That explained the WWII quite much.

    If you read through my article clearly, I have explained you that there were internal arguments/conflicts over the policy or invasion in Japan right before they decided to start the full-scale of Pacific War. That "peace-progressor" failed to win support and the Army decide to go forward to the war. So, that is how it all begun.

    And coming back to my understanding, if they want to do it, they do whatever it cost to make it done.

    That is how those terrible things happened.

    So, please. Do not let your/your folks' feeling block your efforts to understand Japanese people.

    I am not telling that they are right. But just let you know that, if you understand them well, that is not difficult to find out why they acted like that.
     

    emma42

    Senior Member
    British English
    Thank you, crazy Ivan. I am very much trying to understand and I do believe that coconutpalm is as well. It is very difficult to understand, however, when (as I believe) Japanese culture says that one should be circumspect, reticent. I believe that the Japanese would think it very rude or even taboo to talk about things like this. I hope my understanding is correct.

    It is very very difficult for someone from my culture to understand such a different culture, but I am trying.
     

    CrazyIvan

    Senior Member
    Taiwan-Taiwanese
    Please do not feel offended coconutpalm and other Chinese folks. I am about to present some uneasy facts

    Since we talk about invasion. I would like to point out that China has constantly build up their military capacity without clear international monitoring.

    We(Taiwanese) especially feel this heat, while the PLA deployed some 400+ missiles and aim at our heads.

    If we all agree that invasion causes tragedies, then that is our responsibility( or responsibility of our generation) to stop this from happening.
     

    CrazyIvan

    Senior Member
    Taiwan-Taiwanese
    emma42 said:
    Thank you, crazy Ivan. I am very much trying to understand and I do believe that coconutpalm is as well.
    I really have to appreciate your efforts to understand Asian culture, and the difference,and further, the conflicts in between these culture.

    As an Asian, I sometimes cannot fully understand my region as well. We are simliar in great extent but differences in small details, which really make each of us distinct/unique.

    emma42 said:
    I believe that the Japanese would think it very rude or even taboo to talk about things like this. I hope my understanding is correct.
    To some extent, yes, it is difficult to start this converstaion with Japanese.But, once you are friend with them, it is not hard to discuss this. Lots of young generation are angery at the way their government dealing with this thing as I know.

    However, every political issues is kind of taboo while you firstly met someone, right? :p
     

    cuchuflete

    Senior Member
    EEUU-inglés
    tvdxer said:
    The U.S.

    Been invaded? I suppose you could call the War of 1812 an "invasion", maybe 9/11, but I think both would be a bit of a stretch. Otherwise, no.

    Invaded others? Yup, Iraq most recently of course
    You are the second person from the US to make light of the invasion of the War of 1812. The first had his facts badly wrong.

    What do you choose to call it when a foreign country sends troops, they land on your territory, and burn your capital city to the ground? A friendly social outing? Come on. Read a little, just a very little history. The US was invaded, not visited, by British military forces. They torched Washington DC. They fired cannons and bullets. They blockaded ports.

    But then, those are just facts, and some folks prefer to argue myths.

    Why grudgingly just "suppose" you could call it an invasion. It was an invasion. Period.
     

    cuchuflete

    Senior Member
    EEUU-inglés
    emma42 said:
    One of the most shameful acts of that appalling woman, Margaret Thatcher, was to lead this country's military into war with Argentina over the Malvinas/Falklands. The Government had taken practically no notice of the Malvinas for decades, and hardly any ordinary Briton had even heard of the islands.

    But because Mrs Thatcher was determined to destroy the Trades Union Movement from before the onset of her premiership (plans had been hatched and deployed for years) and set in motion other destructive and anti-working class measures, she saw the "invasion" of the Malvinas by Argentina as a golden opportunity to deflect attention from what she was really about (as if she needed to - her stealth tactics and dirty tricks were second to none) and cynically sent troops to their deaths and to effect the deaths of Argentine troops. She then lied about her reasons, including one particularly infamous lie about the sinking of the Argentine ship, The General Belgrano. She insisted that this ship was in "British" waters and was therefore a legitimate target. She was held to account over this lie by an ordinary voter in a TV phone- in, which was riveting to listen to.
    You probably have your facts about Thatcher right, but you've left out the other two thirds of the story...the Argentine side, which was painfully similar to the Thatcherite acts of brutal cynicism, and that of the islanders themselves. About a year ago we had a very long and informative thread on the topic. You might wish to have a look.

    I'm no friend of revisionist history that uses an event to make a point, even stating things that are correct on the surface, without full context. The UK did not invade the Falklands or Malvinas. Jorge Vidella and company did. Lots of UK citizens and Argentine citizens died. It was tragic and needless. Both sides found the war a useful diversion from their abject failures at home. And young cannon fodder paid the price in blood.
     

    coconutpalm

    Senior Member
    Chinese,China
    No offended indeed, Ivan. Although I myself (and most people around me as well) firmly believe that we should reunite, I keep wondering how Taiwanese would feel when being aimed at with missiles by fellow citizens. The cost would be too high once war broke out, and the fact that we are both the descendants of Great Dragon added the weight and made me even sadder.

    Almostfreebird, my "big grin" icon meant nothing but that I really feel that is really a hard question to answer, especially as an outsider. If you feel offended, I apologize. I wanted to send you a PM but later I think it would better for me to say this in public.

    Last night when I was lying in my bed, I thought about the question of "nationalism" and "patriotism"---two sides of one coin.
    In the past, whoever rules that can make the people invaded live a happy life is good rulers and can be eventually accepted by the people, as often happened in China's history. However, since we invented these two words, things have become very very complicated: the invadors have no intention to have the people invaded live a happy life, and the invaded hate the invadors more because they think they are hating on behalf of their country as well.
    The key word may be "otherness".
    The fact that we are here talking/arguing about invading and being invaded maybe because, deep in heart, we still think the people from another country are other people.

    Can we return to our primtive selves withou these religious, political, and national issues/conflicts? I don't think so. Desperate.
    Solutions must exist. We don't know what they are, but at least we can take a step towards it, and I think to put everything on table maybe helpful.
     

    Honour

    Senior Member
    Türkçe, Türkiye
    Sorry, i could only write a short answer
    After establishment of Turkey,we had only a single operation to cyprus but it cannot be counted for invasion because that is not the reason.
    Before Turkey, it was Ottoman empire time and we had first invaded many countries and then invaded ( some of them they regained their independence) by them later. it is a six century's history and numerous countries involved from middle east to north africa and east europe.
    Arabs, persians, greeks, egpyptians, russians, bulgarians, macedonians, hungarians, italians, britons and frenchs are the nations we had had an affair in terms of invasion.
     

    emma42

    Senior Member
    British English
    Well, Cuchuflete, I am sorry you think that I was being "revisionist" and that I had left out two-thirds of the story. To be revisionist was not my intention and I rather resent the implication, although I can understand why you would say that. Oh, and I did not say that the UK had invaded the Malvinas.

    I was merely trying to describe a shameful event in Britain's recent history to illustrate the cynicism of some politicians - actually going to war just to score political points at home. My aim was not to give a complete overview of the conflict, but I agree with what you say in your last two sentences. Just because not every single aspect and viewpoint is described, does not mean that the writer is being deliberately dishonest.l
     

    cuchuflete

    Senior Member
    EEUU-inglés
    emma42 said:
    I was merely trying to describe a shameful event in Britain's recent history to illustrate the cynicism of some politicians - actually going to war just to score political points at home. My aim was not to give a complete overview of the conflict, but I agree with what you say in your last two sentences. Just because not every single aspect and viewpoint is described, does not mean that the writer is being deliberately dishonest.l
    Your honesty was not and is not in question. There was an invasion. It was undertaken for disgustingly cynical, diversionary motives. It was done by Argentine military forces, who were sacrificed in a botched attempt to cover up the failed economy that a vile dictatorship had added to its crimes of torture and murder of citizens. Compared with Videla and friends, the
    scum who took babies of their torture victims and gave them to political cronies, your Mrs Thatcher was a pinko.

    If one pretends to believe in self-determination, the residents of the Malvinas/Falkands were extraordinarily close to unanimous in wanting nothing to do with Argentina, while enjoying an affiliation with Britain, which was mostly out-of-sight and out-of-mind.

    The only 'winner' in that conflict was the French armaments industry, which enjoyed additional sales of Exocet missiles, which were used to kill quite a lot of British sailors.

    To the thread topic: Britain was not invaded, nor was Argentina. The islands were invaded. The Argentines, who had long enjoyed close cultural ties with the British, changed the name of the Torre Británico in downtown Buenos Aires.
    It had long been a symbol of genuine friendship between two nations.

    Anglo-Argentines stopped speaking English in public. Bi-lingual signs were removed from businesses. It would be really interesting to hear from some Argentine foreros as to how much, if any, bad feeling persists, or if the issue has faded into the annals of the horrors of the military dictatorship that
    ravaged that fine country.
     

    ireney

    Modistra
    Greek Greece Mod of Greek, CC and CD
    Turk said:
    After establishment of Turkey,we had only a single operation to cyprus but it cannot be counted for invasion because that is not the reason.
    .
    Errr, I don't want us to start bickering about Cyprus in this thread (there are other bickerings, we don't need to add ours eh? :) ) but, no matter what the reasons, it WAS an invasion.

    (For those of you not well versed in the history of Cyprus, both Greece and Turkey, as 'mother-nations' of the Greek-Cypriots and the Turk-Cypriots respectively, had the right, in case 'their' population was persecuted from the 'others', to go in Cyprus and protect them. I won't go into what happened. All I will say (and that only to prevent Turk or anyone else of my neighbours frequenting this site from thinking I try not to be partial) is that, because of acts by the Greek side, the Turks decided to take action.)

    The reason I call it an invasion is that you are still there and you occupy territory belonging to the State of Cyprus (as stated in the same agreement you use as an excuse for sending your troops).

    We can of course debate (endlessly) about Cyprus in another thread if you wish although I rather we didn't :)
     

    Honour

    Senior Member
    Türkçe, Türkiye
    ireney said:
    Errr, I don't want us to start bickering about Cyprus in this thread (there are other bickerings, we don't need to add ours eh? :) ) but, no matter what the reasons, it WAS an invasion.

    (For those of you not well versed in the history of Cyprus, both Greece and Turkey, as 'mother-nations' of the Greek-Cypriots and the Turk-Cypriots respectively, had the right, in case 'their' population was persecuted from the 'others', to go in Cyprus and protect them. I won't go into what happened. All I will say (and that only to prevent Turk or anyone else of my neighbours frequenting this site from thinking I try not to be partial) is that, because of acts by the Greek side, the Turks decided to take action.)

    The reason I call it an invasion is that you are still there and you occupy territory belonging to the State of Cyprus (as stated in the same agreement you use as an excuse for sending your troops).

    We can of course debate (endlessly) about Cyprus in another thread if you wish although I rather we didn't :)
    Off course it was an invasion, i couldn't express myself correctly i think. The purpose of the operation was not to capture the whole land,in this respect it is not an invasion.When i said invasion it means capturing a country with totally hostile intentions. You know, if it was the intention of the operation then there was no barriers to stop the army. Invasion of greece by ottomans or invasion of anatolia by greeks, like that. Nonetheless, you are exactly right about two things from my point of view. First it is not our subject here and i have forgotten to mention it, they are the politicians who don't want to solve issues between us. I sometimes think there are some underground beneficial points for them. If i don't count crazy nationalist (the ones nearly at a degree of racists) i have seen nobody hostile to greece or greeks. However when i watch news in the evening an if there is a news about greece then politicians are exactly barking each other. I know some history and that is the history;why would i be hostile to men living there? Senseless.
     

    Tatzingo

    Senior Member
    English, UK
    Fernando said:
    You are right. Anyway, Outsider use to be well informed. POssibly he has more data than me.

    Well, obviously "peaceful" is difficult to know when talking about those old days. Possibly most of what we called "invasions" (as an example, Celtics moving to Iberian Peninsula) was mostly peaceful, while many migrations were performed with the weapons at hand.
    Outsider, Fernando,

    Sorry, I think the structure of my question was misleading. I wasn't trying to claim that the migration was definitely peaceful, i was trying to ASCERTAIN from someone else whether it was indeed peaceful or violent...

    Tatz.

    Outsider: Any good links for this "theory"?
     

    Tatzingo

    Senior Member
    English, UK
    Originally Posted by Tatzingo

    There is a claim that China annexed Hong Kong in 1997 and is seeking the same result with regards Taiwan.... (see edit)

    If I remember my history, Hong Kong was Chinese territory annexed to the British at the end of the Opium wars, for a period close to 100 years. China didn't annex Hong Kong at all, rather, territory ceded/capitulated by them was restored to their government in 1997.

    I don't want to launch accusations but this one article sounds more like propanganda to me....
    Tensai said:
    hahahaha, i didn't know that my hometown Hong Kong was annexed by my home country China, this is news to me:D
    British RETURNED Hong Kong to China in 1997
    if someone wants to spread propanganda, atleast get the facts right
    Tensai,

    That wasn't MY claim...

    I agree with what you are saying, the WEBSITE ought to check its facts.
    However, please re-read my post with a little care. The statement in green was paraphrasis of content from a website that another forero had posted a link to. The statement in orange is the truth and also what i was trying to get across.... it is exactly what you are saying.

    And yes, I also agree that such claims are blatant propaganda.

    Tatz.

    Ps. And don't worry - no offence taken.
     

    Becker

    Member
    English
    panjabigator said:
    India, to my knowledge has never invaded anyone. But, they have been invaded by pretty much everything. Many people still hold a grudge.

    I for one am annoyed whenever I discuss it, but I suck it up and get over it quickly. Nothing can be done about it now...just hope for progress!
    Before the arrival of the British was there single entity called "India"?
     

    emma42

    Senior Member
    British English
    I hope this isn't going off-topic, but can forer@s think of anyone else a bit like Gandhi in terms of reaction to and dealing with invasion/occupation? Just typing his name makes me feel a bit funny - he was extraordinary.
     

    coconutpalm

    Senior Member
    Chinese,China
    I don't think it's off-topic. quote: "What actions are necessary, on a national and individual basis, for countries to put their past behind them and form a strong bond with each other?What are examples of countries which have done this successfully?"Gandhi was extraodinary. Peaceful movement against repression/invasion.It was completely different in the progress of China's fight against the invasion. We believed in "violence against violence". We succeeded in building a new country as well, yet there are Taiwan (someone might add Tibet and Xinjiang).No one knows whether we did the right thing. It seems that we were left with only one choice.
     

    Outsider

    Senior Member
    Portuguese (Portugal)
    Tatzingo said:
    Outsider: Any good links for this "theory"?
    Well, I know that Wikipedia isn't the most reliable of sources around, but they do have lots of references at the bottom of the page. Why not check a few of them? :D
     

    karuna

    Senior Member
    Latvian, Latvia
    I think that it takes something more than invasion to spoil the relationships perpetually. Sour relationships between Latvia and Russian, for example, is not simply the result of previous Soviet occupation. There are complex socio-economic reasons.

    1) The occupation resulted in economic crash and the resentment naturally is directed to Russians.

    2) There was unnaturally large influx of Russian immigrants who did not learn Latvian or local culture but forced Latvians to learn Russian instead. Latvia was changed into a bilingual country but with unequal proportions: Latvians spoke Latvian and Russian, but Russians spoke only Russian. It is resented by current Latvian youth because they no longer can speak Russian but it seriously limits their job prospects in their native country. (Like Americans who cannot get job as nurses because they don't speak Spanish, I have heard about such cases.)

    3) Cultural differences. Russians are very open and hospitable persons. On the other hand Latvians are rather prudent and takes long time to accept others as friends. And from their point of view Russians are intrusive and aggressive.

    Nevertheless, all political disagreements aside, the economic connections are thriving between Russia and Latvia. And if a foreigner tries to speak Latvian in Latvia it will be accepted as the highest form of respect. ;)
     

    toscairn

    Banned
    Japan
    cuchuflete said:
    Your honesty was not and is not in question. There was an invasion. It was undertaken for disgustingly cynical, diversionary motives. It was done by Argentine military forces, who were sacrificed in a botched attempt to cover up the failed economy that a vile dictatorship had added to its crimes of torture and murder of citizens. Compared with Videla and friends, the
    scum who took babies of their torture victims and gave them to political cronies, your Mrs Thatcher was a pinko.

    If one pretends to believe in self-determination, the residents of the Malvinas/Falkands were extraordinarily close to unanimous in wanting nothing to do with Argentina, while enjoying an affiliation with Britain, which was mostly out-of-sight and out-of-mind.

    The only 'winner' in that conflict was the French armaments industry, which enjoyed additional sales of Exocet missiles, which were used to kill quite a lot of British sailors.

    To the thread topic: Britain was not invaded, nor was Argentina. The islands were invaded. The Argentines, who had long enjoyed close cultural ties with the British, changed the name of the Torre Británico in downtown Buenos Aires.
    It had long been a symbol of genuine friendship between two nations.

    Anglo-Argentines stopped speaking English in public. Bi-lingual signs were removed from businesses. It would be really interesting to hear from some Argentine foreros as to how much, if any, bad feeling persists, or if the issue has faded into the annals of the horrors of the military dictatorship that
    ravaged that fine country.
    Interesting, cuchuflete. The same political force that you've shown in describing the Folk Islands War is playing a part in what is seen as a sudden surge in the number and size of protests in China against Japanese wartime aggression. As BBC and other western newsmedia have reported, there had scaresly been protests against Japan and Japanese people enough to occupy top stories prior to the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe (around 1989). China experienced two Tiananmen Square Massacres (1976 and 1989). CCP (China Communist Party) took those incidents seriously and were afraid if they took no measures, their regime might soon be overthrown. So what they launched was a series of programs that would boost people's nationalism, their love of CCP, and allowing capitalistic economic systems to enter into Chinese economy, slowly, so as not to make people known that communisum was a bad choice and the very source of people's misery. At the same time they needed a scape goat, or a rival country, which was marked by CCP's diversionary motives:to turn people's eye from the economic division between the rich and poor, between the rich coastal area and the poor inland China; to divert people's blame for failing communist economy away from CCP. They were desperate for a scapegoat. That's the prime reason why Japan was targeted as their archrival and scapegoat. They totally rewritten their textbooks and exaggerated the size and number of casualties in the war. Nanjing Massacre's death toll that China claims was unsubstantiated, exaggerated, inflated number that is ten times larger that western scholars reported. Even though we Japanese feel guilty of such brutality having took place, but we cannot help sensing China's ulterior motives behind the number reported.

    China's patriotic education, even jingoistic education, is characterized by "hate Japan, hate Japan," which is a stark contrast to Japan's "live peacefully with other nations, hand in hand; together we will prosper." China teaches hate, but Japan teaches love.

    Coconutpalm has said that Japan's history textbooks are "glorifying" Japan army's wartime aggresion, but in fact not. Japan is a free, democratic society, and each school has a right to choose its textbooks. In Tokyo Prefecture alone, the problematic textbook that is said to be "glorifying" the past act of Japan is adopted by less than 0.5% of the population. Japan is a country where freedom of expression is cherished.
     

    cuchuflete

    Senior Member
    EEUU-inglés
    I have to apologize for my ignorance of both Japanese and Chinese languages. That weakness prevents me from reading the textbooks published in either country. I would not be surprised to find that many such texts, as those in my own country and in other countries, 'slant' the facts as much by omission as by what they do say.

    I would welcome a brief citation from a common or popular Japanese textbook regarding the Nanjing Massacre, and would like to compare it to what an equivalent Chinese text has to say about events in Tibet.

    I wouldn't be at all surprised if different countries present the same historical happenings in very different ways. For example, I would expect vastly different "factual" views of the continued Russian occupation of Japanese territory invaded towards the end of WW II.
     

    toscairn

    Banned
    Japan
    Originally Posted by coconutpalm
    Nowadays, the political relationship between China and Japan is extremely bad. What is worse, the peoples in both countries HATE each other, or at least, loathe each other.
    The number of Japanese who HATE Chinese is quite small, much smaller, in fact, compared with Chinese opinion polls. We are taught in school to respect other peoples, regardless of nations.

    The underlined part, is that what 新華社通信(Xinhua News Agency) is making you believe? As Wikipedia put it, "It is one of the two news agencies in the PRC, the other being the China News Service, and is among the premier world news agencies." It is regrettable that in China, where there's no freedom of speech allowed, there are only two newsagencies. It's beyond imagination for us people of free and democratic nations, but it might be quite natural for a country which saw no democratic regime all throughout its long history. To quote Wikipedia further: Some critics of Xinhua therefore consider it to be an instrument of state-sponsored propaganda. Reporters Without Borders has called it "the world's biggest propaganda agency" That means, if I understand the Wikipedia article correctly, that every news you learn is controlled by the state-owned firm. Besides, the famous Google filter which hampers all the search results dealing with topics unfavorable to CCP. All websites which declare politically motivated statements have to get permissions from the authority. All those conditions combined will inevitably even out people's opinions, wipe out diversities, and eventually dictate what people should think and how to act. No wonder that every time Chinese people claim something, they sound quite the same whatever people whatever occasion. Their opinions are doomed to converge themselves into a particular fixed idea. Social conditions, political conditions made them so.
     

    hedonist

    Senior Member
    america
    castellano said:
    Taking the topic name as a reference and perhaps not following the discussion itself, I would like to point out something many of the foreros don't know about the conquest of America.

    America was discovered on 12 October 1492 by Columbus, but he was not a Spaniard nor worked for Spain.
    At that time, Spain as a political entity did NOT exist as such. The flags pending in the three ships was the Castilian flag.
    The state-nation that discovered the American continent officially was CASTILE.

    I just want to point this out, as it seems that Castile is deliberately forgotten historically both (and specially) in Spain and abroad.

    [Could you talk about Great Britain and its deeds through History but forgetting England???]

    Best regards.
    I wonder...if Castellano and his people can be immensely proud of their so-called achievements (read: atrocities) why can't the Japanese be proud of their accomplishments in mainland China? Food for thought.
     

    toscairn

    Banned
    Japan
    emma42 said:
    Given the reparations made by, for example, Germany, it would seem that the rest of the world (certainly anywhere I can think of immediately) simply cannot understand the attitude of the Japanese government. The link mentions that a large majority of respondents to a survey in Japan want more dialogue about the matter in apparent contrast to its government. This begs the question of whether the government's reluctance is really a matter of culture, as many think. Does the government adhere to/practise/live in a different culture from its people?
    The fact is, Japan did offer reparations for the damage caused to China. Japan has paid a substantial amount of money as reparations to Dutch, Indonesia, Korea and etc. Chairman Mao Zedong declined Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka's offer for reparations. It is believed that there had been an agreement among the few superpowers not to ask for reparations from the former Axis, in view of the cause of Nazi gaining power, which was an astronomical amount of reparations imposed by France. Besides, China around 1972 was struggling to "save face" by getting admitted as international superpower. The relation between China and the Soviet Union was tense, so that China started trying to improve its relation with US and Japan. Then came the normilization of diplomatic ties between the two countries (1972).

    Also this is important to note that, Japan gave an enormous amount of money to China as ODA. More than 3 trillion yen are given to China, which is the fact almost no Chinese people somehow don't know. That is because the Chinese Press are government controlled, and they don't want its people to know that Japan have been showing remorse, and offering a helping hand for compensation. That is to use it as a political leverage, to be exercised in case of political or economic tension between the two countries.
     

    Carita

    New Member
    Japanese, Japan & Canada
    This is a very timely post, and I take great interest in it. But I guess my opinion is quite far from being objective, although I try to be, since I am Japanese.

    I think in both Japan and China, (and in Korea, to expand the topic a bit), people who have settled their minds over the issue of previous coloniazation, mass murders, massacres, vicious exploitation in our past ARE already over it. The relationship amongst these three countries, or to be more precise, China x Japan or Korea x Japan, have improved quitea bit over the years. The contstant flow of Japanese tourists to China is an asset to a Chinese municipality and the country's prosperity, and vice versa. We also send out and welcome in innumerable exchange students per year between the countries.

    However, when things get a little political, the fact that Japan once dominated East Asia is a too-yummy-to-ignore candy for China. The ongoing battle between the PMs regarding the Yasukuni Shrine has brought another cunning political stragety of China to surface. In my opinion, China is overreacting. Japan and Koizumi have admitted to the war crimes we committed in the past and given official and public apologies. The whole country is aware why China detests our PM's custom of visiting the shrine at issue, and have considered and discussed removing the top-calss war criminals from the shrine, to appease the tension between China and Japan. However, according to the Shintoistic teachings and custom, this is not feasible. Yet China remains deeply upset and demands our PM quit his annual visit to the shrine.

    Since we have tried to mend the situation yet were notified of the difficulty (impossiblity, rather) due to religious reasons, I deem China's demand to the Japanese PM unreasonable.

    Don't get me wrong, though Coconut, because I'm not a big fan of Japanese Politics (although, I am a supporter of Koizumi and his solid intention to keep up his ritual). No pun intended, but Japan seems to be taken advantage of by China at times, but I think for the most part, it is Japan who's been letting that happen repeatedly without changing its wishy-washy, passive attitude towards foreign relations.

    Sorry I made an unreasobly long post.
     

    toscairn

    Banned
    Japan
    coconutpalm said:
    The Japanese government deliberately hides the facts from its people, but I believe they pay attention to it. As you know, the relationship between Korea and Japan is also bad due to the fact that Japan denies that it was playing invader. Rather, it emphasizes that it was also victim.

    I think that's off-topic, so I will stop here. And I'd like to hear the opinions of our Japanese friends on this forum.
    As for "Japanese government deliberately hides the facts," I feel a strong obligation, as a freedom loving individual, to contradict the statement. Japan is a free, democratic nation in which the press, broadcasting stations, news agencies, publishing houses or any form of media are free to voice any opinion, whether it be in an anti-governmental tone or not. Whereas in China, all those institutions are under strict control of CCP, and anyone voicing any hint of unfavorable opinions to CCP is put into jail, I hear.

    Take textbooks, for example. Each school in Japan is free to choose its textbooks. In China, only one version of history book which is imposed by CCP. Is that not right? Tell me if I'm wrong on this.

    People in China, as I understand it, are yoked citizens, in terms of freedom of speech. And their opinions are shaped within the design of the government, allowing a fluctuation which won't inhibit China's interests. This is realized through such national media as Xinhua News Agency. And once their opinions are formed, they are maintained--through the constant screening and monitoring by the Google filter. Through this process--narrowing down people's opinions, tailoring them to government's taste, and strengthening them to be taken advantage of in case of diplomatic tensions with other nations.

    Don't take my account personally, I only intented as a response to your misguiding message which apparently containd untruth.
     

    maxiogee

    Banned
    imithe
    toscairn said:
    Take textbooks, for example. Each school in Japan is free to choose its textbooks. In China, only one version of history book which is imposed by CCP. Is that not right? Tell me if I'm wrong on this.
    I don't see a problem with this.
    In Ireland the curriculum, and the course material, is set by the state.

    Irish History was a fraught subject when I was in school.
    We were not long an independent country and had a 'tense' attitude towards England. We had also had a bitter Civil War.
    So, without knowing what is in either Japanese or Chinese textbooks I feel confident to speak on the issue.
    Nothing which could have been in our schoolbooks could have pleased everyone. There would always be those who would have said that they books were either minimising the events, or were exaggerating them. For this reason the study of Irish History, while I was in school, stopped at the Easter Rising of 1916 — the last great failed rebellion against the British.
    This was probably not an ideal answer to the probelm, but it avoided a host of problems. Ireland in the 1950s and '60s had one of the highest per-capita consumption of newspapers in Europe, and it was felt that the lack of study of the recent past was not causing an overwhelming lack of awareness of the period.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top