The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Ferrus
Yes, I'm not an idiot, but modern turkey I meant that created after the Paris Peace conference. By 1923 Turkey had already overthrown the sultan, and Turkey was run by Kemal Ataturk.

... I never implied you were an idiot? So you were referring to the Turkey established in the Treaty of Sevres? That treaty did not last as Ataturk had the Treaty of Lausanne signed in 1923 in Switzerland which once again restated the borders as the Sevres Treaty was considered ridiculous. That's as modern as Turkey physically gets.
Reply 21
ESBay
... I never implied you were an idiot? So you were referring to the Turkey established in the Treaty of Sevres? That treaty did not last as Ataturk had the Treaty of Lausanne signed in 1923 in Switzerland which once again restated the borders as the Sevres Treaty was considered ridiculous. That's as modern as Turkey physically gets.

Lausanne's border changes were minor in comparison to the border changed of Sevres (which created "modern" Turkey), and Turkey's constitution predates it.
Reply 22
Ferrus
Lausanne's border changes were minor in comparison to the border changed of Sevres (which created "modern" Turkey), and Turkey's constitution predates it.


Sevres didn't create modern Turkey, unless by modern Turkey you refer to central Anatolia.

pendragon
We conquered a 1/4 of the globe and have been to war with most major European powers.

So I am guessing Thailand, Switzerland, Congo and Peru? :biggrin:

It probably depends whether you count the territorial wars as covering land surface or you are simply naming states that we haven’t been to war with because they no longer exist or they came into being relatively recently. We didn’t go to war with the Confederate States of America for example, or the People's Republic of China, but we did have wars with the United States of America and Imperial China. And if you are at war with Spain and technically at war with her colonies (Cuba, Argentina and Mexico) do you count that as having been to war with these countries even though they had not achieved independence as sovereign states at that time? Interesting question! :smile:


It actually bombed Peru in the 1840s or so over non-payment of debt. Actually, it's a pretty safe bet that Britain bombed most of South America at one time or another.

And using that criteria doesn't have much of a purpose since almost the entire world was controlled by half a dozen nations, so a war against the other five would ensure being at war with the entire world at some point.
Its never been at war with Russia has it? Historical wars such as against Napoleon, WW1, WW2, etc they all fought on the same side. The cold war wasn't actually a war as such, so I can't actually think of any time the two countries have been at war.
Reply 24
Portugal.
Reply 25
theisticandy
Its never been at war with Russia has it? Historical wars such as against Napoleon, WW1, WW2, etc they all fought on the same side. The cold war wasn't actually a war as such, so I can't actually think of any time the two countries have been at war.


Crimean War. :confused:
Reply 26
Bismarck
Sevres didn't create modern Turkey, unless by modern Turkey you refer to central Anatolia.
I meant the move from a Middle Eastern empire to an Anatolian nation-state.

It actually bombed Peru in the 1840s or so over non-payment of debt. Actually, it's a pretty safe bet that Britain bombed most of South America at one time or another.

I hate to be captious, but in military terms what it did amounted more to a bombardment. But in any case, South America after independence was an unofficial portion of the British Empire, the "Monroe Doctrine" was no more than wishful thinking on the USA's part.
Reply 27
Ferrus
I meant the move from a Middle Eastern empire to an Anatolian nation-state.


I hate to be captious, but in military terms what it did amounted more to a bombardment. But in any case, South America after independence was an unofficial portion of the British Empire, the "Monroe Doctrine" was no more than wishful thinking on the USA's part.


These kind of doctrines only work when they're backed by force. The US was fairly successful in keeping European activity in the Caribbean to a minimum. And once the 1870s rolled around, the Montroe Doctrine was in effect de facto.
Reply 28
Fiji.
Reply 29
Bismarck
These kind of doctrines only work when they're backed by force. The US was fairly successful in keeping European activity in the Caribbean to a minimum. And once the 1870s rolled around, the Montroe Doctrine was in effect de facto.

This is true, although with regards to the Carribean, after the 7 years war (I think, may have been a different conflict) the UK was sumpremely dominant anyway.
Reply 30
DanGrover
Iceland?

The Cod Wars :confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars
Reply 31
Bismarck

And using that criteria doesn't have much of a purpose since almost the entire world was controlled by half a dozen nations, so a war against the other five would ensure being at war with the entire world at some point.


This pretty much sums up the inherent problem with the OP's claim.
Reply 32
if you consider countries by past boundaries as well then you can obviously discount anywhere that Britain formerly or still controlled as a territory.
Turkey is out as we have been at war with them as Ottoman Empire and as Turkey. US 1812, Denmark 1805 in reply to various other ideas. Canada when it belonged to the French. Norway I cannot immediately remember but I suppose you could consider we fought them as Vikings?

we have fought China indirectly in Korea 1950-53. We have fought swiss troops and also troops from luxembourg in the past several times (obviously when they were part of the French Empire under Napoleon etc).

If you consider UN operations then the Congo and several others are also out.

I think Portugal may be a good idea. traditionally they have been our allies in several wars and while we were at war on their soil from 1809-1811 we were technically protecting their sovereignty.

That is actually the only one i can think of for sure but there may be some south american countries as well. Obviously not Argentina or Belize or Guatamala.
Reply 33
a pacific island or Caribbean maybe
Reply 34
Iran?
Reply 35
nice bumping
Reply 36
Please dont bump old threads. Notified the moderators.
Reply 37
Original post by ak137
Please dont bump old threads. Notified the moderators.


If it's that big of a deal why not just lock em automatically after a week?
Reply 38
Original post by Joinedup
If it's that big of a deal why not just lock em automatically after a week?


Im only enforcing TSR rules.
Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Thailand? Not sure but I can't think of us colonising them and they were occupied by the French after we were allied with them I think. Possibly Indonesia, I can't think of any conflict with Holland post colonisation there... Presumably the Portugese colonies and other Dutch colonies in South America / spice islands...

Latest

Trending

Trending