This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of invasions article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 December 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
American Revolutionary War: how is this an invasion?
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.
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 Smolensk War (During the Time of Troubles and part of the Livonian Wars with the Polish-Lithuanian Alliance or wars waged within the 30 years war which became the first northern war or the Russo-Polish War followed by continuous russian victories), Northern War (Sweden-Denmark alliance the baltic wars, great northern war), 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
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 (small skirmishes in the countryside, tiny fronts, feuds, countryside battles..vice versa or easternized traits of old) 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 which set off the Mexican-American War or constant chain reactions of one war to the next eg rapid growth. American Expansion itself is an invasion or American settlements is an ongoing process of colonization {Imperialism} of the remaining imperialistic powers. 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). Sadly, America was a country established by War. 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)
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 in the Rus. Mongolia is not a full-scale invasion because they only encountered an opposing force once and lost two great battles. Rome in England or Caesars Rome, 100 Years' War and many others such as below I consider are full-scale.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.240.174 ( talk) 08:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Modern Warefare
You are correct thats a territorial incursion or a small invasion, the new term would be occupation or illegal invasion. That is illegal as much as I know I have mongolian blood flowing through me do I know what a full-scale invasion by equal powers and an illegal occupation or invasion is. If there is no force equal to its army there is no injustice. Worldwar II being a perfect example of illegal occupations which lead to an invasion. The invasion was condemned but at fault of the western world because of industrial power, like the french and its farming boom during the small ice age. As much as I know you are listing territorial occupations to me in my eyes. Large wars have both invasions and territorial forces, occupations or what is known as illegal invasions. A universal law states one must be equal to another, or to know thy enemy for a full-scale invasion to occur. Occupations can come and go, they can end and start. They can change the landscape, for instance the Crusades are made up of many illegal occupations ...the political term when a country becomes mobile before an invasion or when its mobile..not industrial mobilization or armament..when one side tries to keep up with the other in economy during wartime...grrr cant remember. Invasions are permanent so they DO 'incur permanent law, and a way of life in its civilization. The Iraq war by no means is an invasion because I dont see corporations around the corner and I def dont see Iran, or a communist state way of life in germany in that matter. The Vietnam war was an invasion that failed and changed the Vietnam language forever...yet historically it still failed (backing up my argument about a successful modern full-scale invasion). Modern Americans (USM) tend to try and do the impossible, only getting the worst scenario and as far as I know never winning. Any nation who wins in militarizing, or in mobile armament(see 100 years war) carries out a successful full-scale invasion. The Cold War, a failed occupation because the west is now the east, and there is no permanent fixture upon the landscape. You seem to be repeating small incursions for little territory. There can not be a successful small invasion without a large one (for example: if you count the invasion of Cypress by Turkey neither side invaded the country, hence Greece is not speaking turkish, turkey is not a larger country. basically it stole cypress from greece followed by the end of the grecian civil war which still wasnt an invasion but a strategic fascist victory or part of the wwII fullscale invasions of territory). You can have a large army, it wont be an invasion though if an equally large army doesnt put up a fight. That's like opening a door to let a criminal in, it just works as an predictable occupation (illegal invasion, or bullyism). The real lie here is Livonia, responsible for european expansion of civilization and the so called suburb, any expansion leads to war this is a fact (albeit I don't totally respect the turks for achieving greatness in expansion or excelling in architecture during this time in europe, livonia was or is dangerous at this time from the time of christ). Tactical warfare is dominated in the 20th century due to technology and terrain, such is the example in the Lebanse-Isreal ware of 2006. It looks to me as illegal occupation, or gain for territory. As for the question, Russia is in a position of expansion of which Israel was in a few thousand to 6000 years ago. I;m not going to list every war in the 20th ce, see. In general, people would learn alot from Mohamet's full scale invasions of taking apart the Roman Empire, or creating the middle-east and Europe at the same time. Byzantine-Arab wars was the biggest invasion i can think of, along with the ancient Indian wars such as Kuresaka and a few persian ones which made history. I look at conquests the same way as occupations, an dismantling or expansion of economy, anyhow (war or not japan spread throughout mongolia all the way to russia when a great empire or world country around bce). Mass migrations are also ruled out, being civilian and nature born, without cause for conflict but ongoing chain reaction lasting for decades past (eg southern great migration of the civil war still ongoing today). Whilst in recent times, I would say the Ottoman empire and russian wars were smaller offshoots with larger territory for country. So the muslim conquests could be an occupation of a mass scale to say the least, not political, and an explosion of karma at the same time. Wikipedia has the right idea, to put every invasion up, I just think there are large ones and small ones.-- 64.9.234.1 ( talk) 01:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
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?
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)
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)
usualy list start in the ancient era en and and in the modern era right or am I wrong ?
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)
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)
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)
good call, it was an attack. A massive attack or a strategic strike, not quite a war or a battle either.-- 66.81.51.95 ( talk) 04:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Added Pearl Harbor to the list, it's an invasion - even by the definition at the top of this page: "An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invade?s=t — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.161.234 ( talk) 03:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
here India is listed as invading force while Pakistan is listed as counter invading force which is not true. please rectify the the mistake India has never invaded any country in its history while you regard freedom of Goa as invasion it was originally ours which was forcefully taken from us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.60.106 ( talk) 11:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The Taliban was the de-facto government of Afghanistan during the 2001 invasion, and thus only needs to be described as 'Afghanistan', with a link to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in the infobox. DylanLacey ( talk) 06:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The United States didn't invade Iceland as it had already been invaded by the United Kingdom. The occupation of Iceland by the United States was pressed upon the Icelandic government by the United Kingdom which had to leave as its unit was needed elsewhere. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson ( talk) 21:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The US deployment to Vietnam was not allowed by the UN Security Council. Why it was not an invasion Hanam190552 ( talk) 08:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Why it is said that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan while the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan invited the Soviet Union to Afghanistan. Hanam190552 ( talk) 10:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you know that president Ngo Dinh Diem had not allowed US army enter South Vietnam. As the result, the US supported the 1963 South Vietnamese coup and the assasination of president Ngo Dinh Diem and his younger brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu. The new gorvernment was only a temporary government, not a constitutional and legistimate government. Only constitutional and legistimate government was able to allow appearances of foreign armies in the South.
After the 1963 coup, there were dozens of coups in South Vietnam. So, which was constitutional and legistimate government in South Vietnam that able to allow the appearance of the US army?
Besides that, the government of Ngo Dinh Diem, which was established in 1955, was also a non-constitutional governemt because the 1946 Vietnamese general electioned with the attendance of 89% of Vietnamese voters had established the 1st National Assembly in Vietnam with the government of Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Therefore, the government of Democratic Republic of Vietnam was the only constitutional and legistimate governemt, which was able to allow appearance of foreign army in Vietnam, including the South and the North.
In addtion, can you show everybody any legistimate documents on the South Vietnamese allowance for the appearance of the US army in the South Vietnam? Hanam190552 ( talk) 07:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Hanam190552 ( talk) 11:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity [1]. Combatants include navy, ground forces, air forces and marine corps. The action of bombing North Vietnam and entrying air space of North Vietnam without any allowance at all of North Vietnam or the UN's Security Council in Operation Linebacker, Operation Linebacker II, Operation Rolling Thunder, Operation Niagara, Operation 1st Do Luong, Operation Popeye, Action of 23 August 1967, Operation Bolo, Thanh Hóa Bridge, Operation Flaming Dart,... was actions of invasions Hanam190552 ( talk) 11:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
References
Does this qualify as an invasion? The definition of invasion describes a "geopolitical entity" and the invaders were apparently pirates. I recognize pirates can sometimes be affiliated with a country, and that pirates themselves may have some kind of political structure, but I'm not entirely sure that a pirate raid is what is meant by an invasion. Please give your thoughts. -- Mr Bucket ( talk) 02:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
see battle at gran, hungary 1584, turks fighting HRE army .... as truks attacked to take over Christian holy roman empire farook Montezuma 24.44.215.132 ( talk) 05:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
"And so it happened that on the 16th day of January, 1893, between four and five o'clock in the afternoon, a detachment of marines from the United States Steamer Boston, with two pieces of artillery, landed at Honolulu. The men, upwards of 160 in all, were supplied with double cartridge belts filled with ammunition and with haversacks and canteens, and were accompanied by a hospital corps with stretchers and medical supplies. This military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu was of itself an act of war, unless made either with the consent of the Government of Hawaii or for the bona fide purpose of protecting the imperilled lives and property of citizens of the United States. But there is no pretense of any such consent on the part of the Government of the Queen, which at that time was undisputed and was both the de facto and the de jure government. In point of fact the existing government instead of requesting the presence of an armed force protested against it. There is as little basis for the pretense that such forces were landed for the security of American life and property. If so, they would have been stationed in the vicinity of such property and so as to protect it, instead of at a distance and so as to command the Hawaiian Government building and palace."
Cleveland calls it a "military demonstration". It is an unconsented to and unprivileged "landing" of troops--an invasion. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1876-1900/president-clevelands-message-about-hawaii-december-18-1893.php Steve laudig ( talk) 05:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Stephen Laudig
I removed 2014 American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War and A4516416 restored it. Military action in support of some parties in a civil war seems to me stretching the definitions of an invasion. Ultimately, all edits on Wikipedia have to be supported by reliable sources. So, A4516416, can you demonstrate that the balance of reliable sources refer to this as an invasion? Bondegezou ( talk) 21:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Bondegezou TU-nor This was yet another illegal invasion by the US without the approval of Syrian Gov. US troops entered Syria to fight ISIS, (a sovereign country) and are still there stealing the oil from the UN recognized Gov. This has been called an occupation by the un recognized gov [2]. Also called illegal, and without approval of the Gov. US troops illegally entered the country and are occupying it. This is an invasion and a occupation of a country. KasimMejia ( talk) 11:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
too obvious??? That seems to be a perfect example of WP:OR. -- T*U ( talk) 12:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I think here we have a valid point, the criteria for inclusion seems to be "An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity deliberately entering territory controlled by another such entity.", what the US did does rather fit that. I think we need ti tighten that, we need to make it clear that "has been characterized as an invasion". Slatersteven ( talk) 14:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Bondegezou Here you say forces were invited by the Gov, [4]. Were US troops invited to steal occupy Syria's oil reserves? This it the brutal truth that you refused to answer above. US is an oil stealing occupier/invader. KasimMejia ( talk) 17:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Such an invasion has never occurred. British forces didn't even invade Austro-Hungary and especially not the Hungarian part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.20.242.56 ( talk) 01:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Why didn't you include the 1992 invasion of Bosnia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.156.148.38 ( talk) 21:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
The linked article Russo-Ukrainian War uses the term "invasion" a few times quoting anti-Russian entities, and a few times without citing source. What source justifies including this? Keith McClary ( talk) 23:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I will remove it. A bombing campaign or the imposition of a no-fly-zone are uses of military force and acts of war but they're different from an invasion in the strategic sense that is intended here, which ultimately entails taking possession of land (incl. with amphibious or airborne landings), which didn't happen in Libya's case. This distinction seems reflected in legal sources as well: for example the Definition of Aggression in A/RES/3314 (XXIX), which reflects customary international law, lists "invasion ... of the territory of another State" and "bombardment ... against the territory of another State" as separate examples of offensive action.
The bombing campaigns undertaken by NATO in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1995 and against Serbia in 1999 aren't listed in the article as 'invasions' of those countries, and neither are the strategic bombings undertaken by the United States against the Japan during WWII, which makes me believe that the 2011 Libya intervention should be excluded as well. If you want to reverse the change comment here first, please. Daydreamers ( talk) 20:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The Name makes no sense. There were 3 invasions 2016, 2018, and 2019. Perhaps changing the name to "Turkish Invasions of Syria" Or listing all three as separate invasions?-- Garmin21 ( talk) 18:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Dear @ Beshogur:,
1. You reverted my edits 3 times which means you are liable for a block. I am not.
2. Again, not POV pushing, you've yet to provide evidence of it being POV pushing. According to the lead "An invasion is a military offensive in which sizable number of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objectives of establishing or re-establishing control, retaliation for real or perceived actions, the liberation of previously lost territory, forcing the partition of a country, gaining concessions or access to natural resources or strategic positions, effecting a change in the ruling government, or any combination thereof." all my inclusions were invasions.
3. If you bring up that they are internationally recognized as part of the country then I will counter that by saying Anjouan, Chechnya, and Biafra were also not recognized as independent of the country, and yet they are still included in the list.
4. If you wish to make a rule where only entities that are Member states of the United Nations are listed then make a discussion for it.
Please reply, thanks.-- Garmin21 ( talk) 19:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
If you bring up that they are internationally recognized as part of the country then I will counter that by ...WP:OTHERSTUFF. You're brining new stuff. Those others that are already here are not my concerns. Also the article has many problems itself. The Tigray war and 2020 Karabakh war are not invasions, you can call it by yourself, but you can not push your view here; and your other linked pages do not even mention the word invasion. Also
You reverted my edits 3 times which means you are liable for a block. I am not.you're bringing a highly controversial, even wrong edits. It's not about revert counts, you're edit warring. Beshogur ( talk) 20:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country. Which are not the cases here. Is Tigray and Artsakh another country? Doubt. One is a federal region, other is a quasi state de jure under Azerbaijan. Beshogur ( talk) 22:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I have no clue about Anjoan and Biafra, and hearing those two for the first time, but Chechnya situation is definitely not the same. Also Taiwan is a proper state despite not being UN member. Beshogur ( talk) 10:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
References
It would appear that the inclusion criteria for populating this list is somewhat fuzzy to the point that any time someone puts a foot over a line in the sand it gets plonked in here. The inclusion here would appear to be largely WP:OR for conflicts/engagements that are not commonly termed an invasion in sources and that have articles named accordingly. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
is a military offensive of combatants of one geopolitical entity, usually in large numbers, entering territory controlled by another similar entity, generally with the objective of either: conquering; liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory; forcing the partition of a country; altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government; or a combination thereof.The definition of "invasion" is an act of invading; especially: incursion of an army for conquest or plunder or the act of an army entering another country by force in order to take control of it ( [6]). Every entry so far has to meet the requirement of one group working to take control of another group. If an entry being listed is a concern, then bring that specific entry up for discussion. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 01:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
The inclusion criteria used appear to be more one of editor opinion ...has a totally different meaning from
The inclusion criteria used appear to be more of one editor's opinion.I wrote the former, not the latter. It appears to me that you have grabbed the wrong end of the stick. Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Another term for an offensive often used by the media is "invasion", or the more general "attack".
Events included in this list are those where a significant proportion of independent good quality sources have explicitly referred to the event as being an invasionI would clarify some of the terminology. A significant proportion does not mean more than a simple majority (50%) but something approaching a simple majority and not a fringe view. In this context, independent means authors writing at arms-length from the subject - ie without nationalistic ties to the subject. Good quality sources would exclude WP:NEWSORG sources. It would include academic and credentialed authors. Explicitly referring to the event as being an invasion would mean that invasion, invaded, invaders or another gramatical form of this particular word. The lead should also be modified to reflect the inclusion criteria, though the wording will probably be a little different given there is a different target audience. Open for comments please. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of invasions article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 December 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
American Revolutionary War: how is this an invasion?
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.
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 Smolensk War (During the Time of Troubles and part of the Livonian Wars with the Polish-Lithuanian Alliance or wars waged within the 30 years war which became the first northern war or the Russo-Polish War followed by continuous russian victories), Northern War (Sweden-Denmark alliance the baltic wars, great northern war), 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
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 (small skirmishes in the countryside, tiny fronts, feuds, countryside battles..vice versa or easternized traits of old) 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 which set off the Mexican-American War or constant chain reactions of one war to the next eg rapid growth. American Expansion itself is an invasion or American settlements is an ongoing process of colonization {Imperialism} of the remaining imperialistic powers. 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). Sadly, America was a country established by War. 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)
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 in the Rus. Mongolia is not a full-scale invasion because they only encountered an opposing force once and lost two great battles. Rome in England or Caesars Rome, 100 Years' War and many others such as below I consider are full-scale.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.240.174 ( talk) 08:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Modern Warefare
You are correct thats a territorial incursion or a small invasion, the new term would be occupation or illegal invasion. That is illegal as much as I know I have mongolian blood flowing through me do I know what a full-scale invasion by equal powers and an illegal occupation or invasion is. If there is no force equal to its army there is no injustice. Worldwar II being a perfect example of illegal occupations which lead to an invasion. The invasion was condemned but at fault of the western world because of industrial power, like the french and its farming boom during the small ice age. As much as I know you are listing territorial occupations to me in my eyes. Large wars have both invasions and territorial forces, occupations or what is known as illegal invasions. A universal law states one must be equal to another, or to know thy enemy for a full-scale invasion to occur. Occupations can come and go, they can end and start. They can change the landscape, for instance the Crusades are made up of many illegal occupations ...the political term when a country becomes mobile before an invasion or when its mobile..not industrial mobilization or armament..when one side tries to keep up with the other in economy during wartime...grrr cant remember. Invasions are permanent so they DO 'incur permanent law, and a way of life in its civilization. The Iraq war by no means is an invasion because I dont see corporations around the corner and I def dont see Iran, or a communist state way of life in germany in that matter. The Vietnam war was an invasion that failed and changed the Vietnam language forever...yet historically it still failed (backing up my argument about a successful modern full-scale invasion). Modern Americans (USM) tend to try and do the impossible, only getting the worst scenario and as far as I know never winning. Any nation who wins in militarizing, or in mobile armament(see 100 years war) carries out a successful full-scale invasion. The Cold War, a failed occupation because the west is now the east, and there is no permanent fixture upon the landscape. You seem to be repeating small incursions for little territory. There can not be a successful small invasion without a large one (for example: if you count the invasion of Cypress by Turkey neither side invaded the country, hence Greece is not speaking turkish, turkey is not a larger country. basically it stole cypress from greece followed by the end of the grecian civil war which still wasnt an invasion but a strategic fascist victory or part of the wwII fullscale invasions of territory). You can have a large army, it wont be an invasion though if an equally large army doesnt put up a fight. That's like opening a door to let a criminal in, it just works as an predictable occupation (illegal invasion, or bullyism). The real lie here is Livonia, responsible for european expansion of civilization and the so called suburb, any expansion leads to war this is a fact (albeit I don't totally respect the turks for achieving greatness in expansion or excelling in architecture during this time in europe, livonia was or is dangerous at this time from the time of christ). Tactical warfare is dominated in the 20th century due to technology and terrain, such is the example in the Lebanse-Isreal ware of 2006. It looks to me as illegal occupation, or gain for territory. As for the question, Russia is in a position of expansion of which Israel was in a few thousand to 6000 years ago. I;m not going to list every war in the 20th ce, see. In general, people would learn alot from Mohamet's full scale invasions of taking apart the Roman Empire, or creating the middle-east and Europe at the same time. Byzantine-Arab wars was the biggest invasion i can think of, along with the ancient Indian wars such as Kuresaka and a few persian ones which made history. I look at conquests the same way as occupations, an dismantling or expansion of economy, anyhow (war or not japan spread throughout mongolia all the way to russia when a great empire or world country around bce). Mass migrations are also ruled out, being civilian and nature born, without cause for conflict but ongoing chain reaction lasting for decades past (eg southern great migration of the civil war still ongoing today). Whilst in recent times, I would say the Ottoman empire and russian wars were smaller offshoots with larger territory for country. So the muslim conquests could be an occupation of a mass scale to say the least, not political, and an explosion of karma at the same time. Wikipedia has the right idea, to put every invasion up, I just think there are large ones and small ones.-- 64.9.234.1 ( talk) 01:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
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?
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)
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)
usualy list start in the ancient era en and and in the modern era right or am I wrong ?
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)
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)
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)
good call, it was an attack. A massive attack or a strategic strike, not quite a war or a battle either.-- 66.81.51.95 ( talk) 04:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Added Pearl Harbor to the list, it's an invasion - even by the definition at the top of this page: "An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invade?s=t — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.161.234 ( talk) 03:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
here India is listed as invading force while Pakistan is listed as counter invading force which is not true. please rectify the the mistake India has never invaded any country in its history while you regard freedom of Goa as invasion it was originally ours which was forcefully taken from us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.60.106 ( talk) 11:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The Taliban was the de-facto government of Afghanistan during the 2001 invasion, and thus only needs to be described as 'Afghanistan', with a link to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in the infobox. DylanLacey ( talk) 06:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The United States didn't invade Iceland as it had already been invaded by the United Kingdom. The occupation of Iceland by the United States was pressed upon the Icelandic government by the United Kingdom which had to leave as its unit was needed elsewhere. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson ( talk) 21:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The US deployment to Vietnam was not allowed by the UN Security Council. Why it was not an invasion Hanam190552 ( talk) 08:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Why it is said that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan while the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan invited the Soviet Union to Afghanistan. Hanam190552 ( talk) 10:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you know that president Ngo Dinh Diem had not allowed US army enter South Vietnam. As the result, the US supported the 1963 South Vietnamese coup and the assasination of president Ngo Dinh Diem and his younger brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu. The new gorvernment was only a temporary government, not a constitutional and legistimate government. Only constitutional and legistimate government was able to allow appearances of foreign armies in the South.
After the 1963 coup, there were dozens of coups in South Vietnam. So, which was constitutional and legistimate government in South Vietnam that able to allow the appearance of the US army?
Besides that, the government of Ngo Dinh Diem, which was established in 1955, was also a non-constitutional governemt because the 1946 Vietnamese general electioned with the attendance of 89% of Vietnamese voters had established the 1st National Assembly in Vietnam with the government of Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Therefore, the government of Democratic Republic of Vietnam was the only constitutional and legistimate governemt, which was able to allow appearance of foreign army in Vietnam, including the South and the North.
In addtion, can you show everybody any legistimate documents on the South Vietnamese allowance for the appearance of the US army in the South Vietnam? Hanam190552 ( talk) 07:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Hanam190552 ( talk) 11:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity [1]. Combatants include navy, ground forces, air forces and marine corps. The action of bombing North Vietnam and entrying air space of North Vietnam without any allowance at all of North Vietnam or the UN's Security Council in Operation Linebacker, Operation Linebacker II, Operation Rolling Thunder, Operation Niagara, Operation 1st Do Luong, Operation Popeye, Action of 23 August 1967, Operation Bolo, Thanh Hóa Bridge, Operation Flaming Dart,... was actions of invasions Hanam190552 ( talk) 11:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
References
Does this qualify as an invasion? The definition of invasion describes a "geopolitical entity" and the invaders were apparently pirates. I recognize pirates can sometimes be affiliated with a country, and that pirates themselves may have some kind of political structure, but I'm not entirely sure that a pirate raid is what is meant by an invasion. Please give your thoughts. -- Mr Bucket ( talk) 02:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
see battle at gran, hungary 1584, turks fighting HRE army .... as truks attacked to take over Christian holy roman empire farook Montezuma 24.44.215.132 ( talk) 05:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
"And so it happened that on the 16th day of January, 1893, between four and five o'clock in the afternoon, a detachment of marines from the United States Steamer Boston, with two pieces of artillery, landed at Honolulu. The men, upwards of 160 in all, were supplied with double cartridge belts filled with ammunition and with haversacks and canteens, and were accompanied by a hospital corps with stretchers and medical supplies. This military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu was of itself an act of war, unless made either with the consent of the Government of Hawaii or for the bona fide purpose of protecting the imperilled lives and property of citizens of the United States. But there is no pretense of any such consent on the part of the Government of the Queen, which at that time was undisputed and was both the de facto and the de jure government. In point of fact the existing government instead of requesting the presence of an armed force protested against it. There is as little basis for the pretense that such forces were landed for the security of American life and property. If so, they would have been stationed in the vicinity of such property and so as to protect it, instead of at a distance and so as to command the Hawaiian Government building and palace."
Cleveland calls it a "military demonstration". It is an unconsented to and unprivileged "landing" of troops--an invasion. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1876-1900/president-clevelands-message-about-hawaii-december-18-1893.php Steve laudig ( talk) 05:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Stephen Laudig
I removed 2014 American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War and A4516416 restored it. Military action in support of some parties in a civil war seems to me stretching the definitions of an invasion. Ultimately, all edits on Wikipedia have to be supported by reliable sources. So, A4516416, can you demonstrate that the balance of reliable sources refer to this as an invasion? Bondegezou ( talk) 21:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Bondegezou TU-nor This was yet another illegal invasion by the US without the approval of Syrian Gov. US troops entered Syria to fight ISIS, (a sovereign country) and are still there stealing the oil from the UN recognized Gov. This has been called an occupation by the un recognized gov [2]. Also called illegal, and without approval of the Gov. US troops illegally entered the country and are occupying it. This is an invasion and a occupation of a country. KasimMejia ( talk) 11:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
too obvious??? That seems to be a perfect example of WP:OR. -- T*U ( talk) 12:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I think here we have a valid point, the criteria for inclusion seems to be "An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity deliberately entering territory controlled by another such entity.", what the US did does rather fit that. I think we need ti tighten that, we need to make it clear that "has been characterized as an invasion". Slatersteven ( talk) 14:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Bondegezou Here you say forces were invited by the Gov, [4]. Were US troops invited to steal occupy Syria's oil reserves? This it the brutal truth that you refused to answer above. US is an oil stealing occupier/invader. KasimMejia ( talk) 17:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Such an invasion has never occurred. British forces didn't even invade Austro-Hungary and especially not the Hungarian part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.20.242.56 ( talk) 01:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Why didn't you include the 1992 invasion of Bosnia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.156.148.38 ( talk) 21:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
The linked article Russo-Ukrainian War uses the term "invasion" a few times quoting anti-Russian entities, and a few times without citing source. What source justifies including this? Keith McClary ( talk) 23:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I will remove it. A bombing campaign or the imposition of a no-fly-zone are uses of military force and acts of war but they're different from an invasion in the strategic sense that is intended here, which ultimately entails taking possession of land (incl. with amphibious or airborne landings), which didn't happen in Libya's case. This distinction seems reflected in legal sources as well: for example the Definition of Aggression in A/RES/3314 (XXIX), which reflects customary international law, lists "invasion ... of the territory of another State" and "bombardment ... against the territory of another State" as separate examples of offensive action.
The bombing campaigns undertaken by NATO in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1995 and against Serbia in 1999 aren't listed in the article as 'invasions' of those countries, and neither are the strategic bombings undertaken by the United States against the Japan during WWII, which makes me believe that the 2011 Libya intervention should be excluded as well. If you want to reverse the change comment here first, please. Daydreamers ( talk) 20:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The Name makes no sense. There were 3 invasions 2016, 2018, and 2019. Perhaps changing the name to "Turkish Invasions of Syria" Or listing all three as separate invasions?-- Garmin21 ( talk) 18:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Dear @ Beshogur:,
1. You reverted my edits 3 times which means you are liable for a block. I am not.
2. Again, not POV pushing, you've yet to provide evidence of it being POV pushing. According to the lead "An invasion is a military offensive in which sizable number of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objectives of establishing or re-establishing control, retaliation for real or perceived actions, the liberation of previously lost territory, forcing the partition of a country, gaining concessions or access to natural resources or strategic positions, effecting a change in the ruling government, or any combination thereof." all my inclusions were invasions.
3. If you bring up that they are internationally recognized as part of the country then I will counter that by saying Anjouan, Chechnya, and Biafra were also not recognized as independent of the country, and yet they are still included in the list.
4. If you wish to make a rule where only entities that are Member states of the United Nations are listed then make a discussion for it.
Please reply, thanks.-- Garmin21 ( talk) 19:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
If you bring up that they are internationally recognized as part of the country then I will counter that by ...WP:OTHERSTUFF. You're brining new stuff. Those others that are already here are not my concerns. Also the article has many problems itself. The Tigray war and 2020 Karabakh war are not invasions, you can call it by yourself, but you can not push your view here; and your other linked pages do not even mention the word invasion. Also
You reverted my edits 3 times which means you are liable for a block. I am not.you're bringing a highly controversial, even wrong edits. It's not about revert counts, you're edit warring. Beshogur ( talk) 20:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country. Which are not the cases here. Is Tigray and Artsakh another country? Doubt. One is a federal region, other is a quasi state de jure under Azerbaijan. Beshogur ( talk) 22:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I have no clue about Anjoan and Biafra, and hearing those two for the first time, but Chechnya situation is definitely not the same. Also Taiwan is a proper state despite not being UN member. Beshogur ( talk) 10:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
References
It would appear that the inclusion criteria for populating this list is somewhat fuzzy to the point that any time someone puts a foot over a line in the sand it gets plonked in here. The inclusion here would appear to be largely WP:OR for conflicts/engagements that are not commonly termed an invasion in sources and that have articles named accordingly. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
is a military offensive of combatants of one geopolitical entity, usually in large numbers, entering territory controlled by another similar entity, generally with the objective of either: conquering; liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory; forcing the partition of a country; altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government; or a combination thereof.The definition of "invasion" is an act of invading; especially: incursion of an army for conquest or plunder or the act of an army entering another country by force in order to take control of it ( [6]). Every entry so far has to meet the requirement of one group working to take control of another group. If an entry being listed is a concern, then bring that specific entry up for discussion. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 01:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
The inclusion criteria used appear to be more one of editor opinion ...has a totally different meaning from
The inclusion criteria used appear to be more of one editor's opinion.I wrote the former, not the latter. It appears to me that you have grabbed the wrong end of the stick. Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Another term for an offensive often used by the media is "invasion", or the more general "attack".
Events included in this list are those where a significant proportion of independent good quality sources have explicitly referred to the event as being an invasionI would clarify some of the terminology. A significant proportion does not mean more than a simple majority (50%) but something approaching a simple majority and not a fringe view. In this context, independent means authors writing at arms-length from the subject - ie without nationalistic ties to the subject. Good quality sources would exclude WP:NEWSORG sources. It would include academic and credentialed authors. Explicitly referring to the event as being an invasion would mean that invasion, invaded, invaders or another gramatical form of this particular word. The lead should also be modified to reflect the inclusion criteria, though the wording will probably be a little different given there is a different target audience. Open for comments please. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)