|
|
Are there any countries existing now that have never been taken over and occupied by a foreign army, and ruled by a foreign government?
Question
#105541. Asked by george48. (May 13 09 4:49 PM)
|
Datsmeharse
|
Since the area was unified into a kingdom in 1768, Nepal has not been taken over and occupied by a foreign army or ruled by a foreign government.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal
The Kingdom of Great Britain, and later the United Kingdom, has not been occupied since its establishment in 1707, though a number of lands comprising this union, e.g. Scotland and England, had been independent and unoccupied for many centuries previously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain
Sweden has technically never been occupied or ruled by a foreign goverment, if one interprets the Kalmar Union of 1397 as it was intended.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden
Many independent countries since their formation as such have been unoccupied or ruled by a foreign government. The United States is one example.
|
star_gazer
|
In 1919, after the October Revolution in Russia, Chinese troops led by Xu Shuzheng occupied Mongolia. In the Russian Civil War, the White Russian adventurer Baron Ungern led his troops into Mongolia in October 1920, defeating the Chinese in Niislel Khüree (Ulaanbaatar) in early February 1921.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolia
|
queproblema
|
Nepal was invaded by Tibet and by the British.
"A dispute and subsequent war with Tibet over the control of mountain passes forced the Nepalese to retreat and pay heavy reparations. Rivalry between Nepal and the British East India Company over the annexation of minor states bordering Nepal eventually led to the Anglo-Nepalese War (1815–16). The valor displayed by the Nepalese during the war astounded their enemies and earned them their image of fierce and ruthless "Gurkhas". The war ended in the Treaty of Sugauli, under which Nepal ceded recently-captured portions of Sikkim and lands in Terai to the Company."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal#Modern
I would say the burning of Washington, D.C. in the War of 1812 constitutes an occupation by a foreign power.
"This forced the British troops to return to their ships, many of which were badly damaged by the storm, and so the actual occupation of Washington lasted about 26 hours."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
|
Datsmeharse
|
This has moved on to really a discussion of interpretation so my apologies to the editor. Both Nepal and the United States were invaded at one point and the territory lost was thus occupied by a foreign army; however, in both cases the country as a whole did not fall and was thus not ruled by a foreign government. Nepal's military stronghold fell, but not their capital Kathmandu. The U.S. never capitulated despite the overnight occupation of Washington, D.C.
|
Baloo55th
|
As countries rather than lumps of land, quite a few I imagine. Tanzania's predecessors Tanganyika and Zanzibar were colonised or invaded, but since the union of these previously unconnected countries no-one seems to have done anything to Tanzania. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzania
|
Baloo55th
|
Don't forget the Japanese occupation of part of the US in WWII. (See some question I asked here.) Of course, the questioner might mean the whole country rather than a part.
|
george48
|
Thanks for all these replies.
The question i asked,such a simple one i thought,
has turned out to be more complicated then i anticipated.
|
Find something useful here? Please help us spread the word about FunTrivia. Recommend this page below!
|
Sign up to see all responses!
