Which Of The World’s Countries Have Never Been Conquered By Another Nation? - Page 5 - Historum

sylla1 · February 23rd, 2011, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hangman

On this topic I've learned Scotland, England, USA (as it was discovered not conquered) and Germany never have been conquered? What do you think? Kind regards.

AFAIK virtually any single inhabited square inch of this planet has been conquered at some time (usually more than once).

vid · February 23rd, 2011, 01:40 AM

Since 28 October 1918, when Czechoslovak Republic was formed, it has not been conquered by any force. Any pretension to that single fact is a waste of keystrokes.

Only this one time, half of it declared independence, and president of remaining half invited neighboring Fuhrer to protect the remaining land. But that's not really being conquered, is it?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

sylla1 · February 23rd, 2011, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid

Since 28 October 1918, when Czechoslovak Republic was formed, it has not been conquered by any force. Any pretension to that single fact is a waste of keystrokes.

Only this one time, half of it declared independence, and president of remaining half invited neighboring Fuhrer to protect the remaining land. But that's not really being conquered, is it?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Only if you entirely ignore WW2 ...

**redcoat** · February 23rd, 2011, 02:31 AM

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

**Naomasa298** · February 23rd, 2011, 02:58 AM

Japan has not, strictly speaking, been conquered. It was defeated and occupied, but was never incorporated into another country's territory, nor was it permanently placed under the rule of the occupying forces.

Modern-day Thailand (Siam, as was) has not been conquered or colonised - its predecessor kingdom Ayutthaya though was overrun and destroyed by the Burmese.

The modern state of Israel hasn't been conquered. Yet...

**gaius valerius** · February 23rd, 2011, 03:18 AM

People are going to have to make a clear distinction between country and area. England as a state is not England the geographical area. The Roman conquest of the British isles does not equal the conquest of an English state, at least not the current day one. Neither does the colonisation of what would become the country Iceland constitute the conquest of that country, since it was non-existant. And by conquest one obviously refers to full occupation of a country? Also:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naomasa298

Japan has not, strictly speaking, been conquered. It was defeated and occupied, but was never incorporated into another country's territory, nor was it permanently placed under the rule of the occupying forces.

Conquered does not mean incorporated and its sovereign existance erased. Conquered equally means I bust in kill you and place my marionet leader on your throne or whatever puppet regime I wish. Japan is most eligible in that regard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tennenbaum

Mexico....

And by extension all South (not Latin)-American countries have never been conquered since they saw the light of day (which is generally around 1820 except for Brazil).

**Spartacuss** · February 23rd, 2011, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beorna

Just the northern part!

... ouch.

**Naomasa298** · February 23rd, 2011, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaius valerius

Conquered does not mean incorporated and its sovereign existance erased. Conquered equally means I bust in kill you and place my marionet leader on your throne or whatever puppet regime I wish. Japan is most eligible in that regard.

If you count a temporary occupation as conquering, then yes, it was conquered, but I would argue the definition. To me, conquering means a more permanent state of affairs, at least in intention if not in fact.

**gaius valerius** · February 23rd, 2011, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naomasa298

If you count a temporary occupation as conquering, then yes, it was conquered, but I would argue the definition. To me, conquering means a more permanent state of affairs, at least in intention if not in fact.

I don't know what the OP meant with conquest, so this matter will remain unresolved

**redcoat** · February 23rd, 2011, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naomasa 298

If you count a temporary occupation as conquering, then yes, it was conquered, but I would argue the definition. To me, conquering means a more permanent state of affairs, at least in intention if not in fact.

What the dictionary states is the meaning of Conquer: To gain or acquire by force; to take possession of by violent means; to gain dominion over; to subdue by physical means; to reduce; to overcome by force of arms; to cause to yield; to vanquish.

Japan does seem to come under the definition of conquered in 1945