add sweden ( charles XIII, 1709 ) to the napoleon & hitler list
Add to this list khazars, cumans (XI-XIII centuries), Teutonic and Livonian Knights (XIII century), mongols (XIII-XV centuries), polish invaders (1601-1613), Antanta's intervention (1918-1922) etc.

This may be heavily denied by others, but based on the hands dealt, I would have to go with Japan.

They are spared the Mongol invasion in full force due to bad storms which turn away/sink their vessels.

They LOSE World War II and have very little natural resources, but become highly industrialised, and one of the most advanced nations on earth. Despite financial problems now, there is a very high standard of living.

Considering all that's happened, they're quite lucky.

England. Being an island country in a good climate. Tough to conquer, great crops.

England. Being an island country in a good climate. Tough to conquer, great crops.


Also being filled with incompetent people, and yet able to be one of western europe's world powers, even though it was one of the last ones to do so.

Warned. Trolling/flaming. - KD

The Grand Duchy of Fenwick.

To me, the luckiest nation is the USA. Ability to expand with little violence, no great foreign invasion and becoming superpower because Europe blows itself twice...
Tell that to the natives.:lol:

The Grand Duchy of Fenwick.
Because no-one has heard of it? ;)

I have. Let that mouse roar! :)

I'd have to say Brunei, Norway, Quatar and all the other small oil nations. We all struck oil, went from poor to stinkin rich in a decade through no effort at all, simply lucky striking oil. Also we are too small to be significant, so we don't have to worry about world conflicts. Just plain lucky.

byzantine empire it survived while rome was invaded, frequent attempts to take constantinople where quashed and survived untill 1453 when the ottoman killed thier emperor and destroyed their empire

Gentleman(and women) I do believe the migty seth macfarlane of family guy settled this. The US state Rhode Island is the luckiest, I quote

"I just Cant figure out what to name this place"
"Ok, lets flip a coin, on one side Rhode Island, the other side Ca-ca-poo-poo-pee-pee-shire"

I didnt bother looking to see if someone already said this. Rhode Island Isnt a nation but is pretty lucky.

Just look at the French Revolution

Any nation can win it's own civil war:lol:

Any nation can win it's own civil war:lol:

The Frenchies, having internal revolts, not only manages to defend themselves against the surrounding monarchies, they invaded the Benelux and northern Italy. A few years later, some general takes the power and conquers all Europe...

We French are lucky indeed :woohoo: Did you know that we are able to produce wine today, thanks to American's rootstock against the Phylloxera?


I'm not sure if a nation can be "lucky" and build its history on a lucky event. An army or fleet? Yes i believe so, weather in favor of your troops, thus giving you an hedge, for exemple the fog. Austerlitz, anyone?

But often battles won or lost can change history, so perhaps i'm wrong and indeed a nation can be lucky :)

If i would have to qualify a nation of lucky as of Today, my choice would be Espagna! They sleep all day, well ok not all day but most of the day! ;) Pretty girls, exellent food and nice weather!

I've read most of this thread and i'm shocked that still today, some people, most of them americans (if not all but i'm not sure) still bash french for no reasons. I thought the freedom fries episode was over, maybe its time to move on ? :mischief:

New Zealand are the luckiest, low pollution, clean water, and the best herbs this side of Amsterdam. Only bummer is being so close to Oz

I guess Britain could be called 'lucky' for the channel / climate etc.

But the channel is only useful if you can control it. Controlling
the channel and later the oceans was not luck at all imho.

Point, that doesn't make them lucky, just successful. Being lucky is having things go your way without work.

I'd agree Canada is definetly one of the luckiest nations ever. Really only one war on its own soil against the US which it won. Being located next to such a powerful nation they've had it easy in the sense of military defense and the economy obviously benefits greatly.

Which war did Canada beat the US in?

I would say Japan, as other have said, because of the "divine wind" that saved them against the Mongols.

Rome - While it did get sacked eventually it was not razed. For some reason Atilla the Hun turned around and headed home right at the end for unknown reasons. From the battle of the Catalonian Fields we can see he was very powerful and woul have caused a lot of destruction. Just as quickly as they appeared they disappeared. Atilla then died of a nose bleed.

The luckiest nation (well, de facto) is probably Taiwan. I mean, avoiding invasion by the largest military on the planet AND prosper for almost 60 years.

Cuba. I mean, they get to be ruled by Castro! How lucky is that?
Seriously, though, I'd probably say Britain. A slight tendancy towards naval interest, due to the island nature of the country, eventually lead to us ruling a 1/4 of the globe (of course, this was definitely unlucky for the rest of the world). What's more, we didn;t crumble to dust when the empire was (thankfully) broken up- we managed to stay extremely wealthy, and we're currently in the top 5 wealthiest nations on Earth! (The other 4 being the USA in 1st, Japan in 2nd, and France and Germany. I'm not sure where the UK, France and GErmany come, and I think they keep switching, anyway.)
If you want to look way back into history, I'd say Japan- plentiful fishing resources were a valuable food source, and the fact that it was an island prevented inavasion from abroad, unlike China and Korea who were regularly raided or invaded by mongolian, and occassionally turkish, tribes.

Definetly Sweden! They have never waged war. Expect against Russians and with Finnish soldiers.(they lost Finland to Russia in about 1809)

Definetly Sweden! They have never waged war. Expect against Russians and with Finnish soldiers.(they lost Finland to Russia in about 1809)
Never?
From 1521 to 1814 (293 years), Sweden has been at war during 160 years. That's about 54% of the time.

This is a list of wars fought by Sweden between 1521 and 1814:

- The Swedish War of Liberation or Befrielsekriget (1521-1523)
- The Danish Count's Feud or Danska Grevefejden (1534-1536)
- The Great Russian War or Stora ryska kriget (1554-1557)
- The Northern Seven Years' War or Nordiska sjuårskriget (1563-1570)
- The Russian Twenty-five Years' War or 25-årskriget mot Ryssland (1570-1595)
- The War against Sigismund or Kriget mot Sigismund (1598-1599)
- The Polish War or Polska kriget (1600-1629)
- The De la Gardie Campaign or De la Gardieska fälttåget (1609-1610)
- The Ingrian War or Ingermanländska kriget (1610-1617)
- The Kalmar War or Kalmarkriget (1611-1613)
- The Thirty Years' War or Trettioåriga kriget (1630-1648)
- The Torstenson War or Torstensonkriget (1643-1645)
- The First Bremian War or Första bremiska kriget (1654)
- The Northern Wars or Nordiska krigen (1655-1661)
- The Second Bremian War or Andra bremiska kriget (1666)
- The Scanian War or Skånska kriget (1674-1679)
- The Great Northern War or Stora nordiska kriget (1700-1721)
- The Hats' Russian War or Hattarnas ryska krig (1741-1743)
- The Seven Years' War or Pommerska kriget (1757-1762)
- Gustav III's Russian War or Gustav III:s ryska krig (1788-1790)
- The First War against Napoleon or Första kriget mot Napoleon (1805-1810)
- The Finnish War or Finska kriget (1808-1809)
- The War against England or Kriget mot England (1810-1812)
- The Second War against Napoleon or Andra kriget mot Napoleon (1813-1814)
- The Campaign against Norway or Fälttåget mot Norge (1814)

Never?
From 1521 to 1814 (293 years), Sweden has been at war during 160 years. That's about 54% of the time.
Yup.
Makes one kind of tired just looking at the list.;)

It's true about the Finns though - it worked a bit like the Scots to the English.:goodjob:

In Europe definately Switzerland. Other candidates Finland and Austria.

In Europe definately Switzerland. Other candidates Finland and Austria.
The Austrian were SO lucky to have their empire split in so many countries after WWI!!

Britian for there chanel which saved them many times. Russia for the winters that destroyed Karl XII's, Napoleon and Hitler's army

I'd say the USA. The only wars we should have won in our history are our Native American wars, the one against Spain and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should not have entered World War I. That was because of British deception. World War II should have been over in 1941 when Hitler invaded Britain. But Hitler was an idiot and went to Russia instead of taking England. The Revolutionary War should have been lost numerous times and the Confederates had the Civil War won before they gave us their battle plans. The War of 1812 was stupid. We declared war on Britain, they invaded us and New England was going to secede because the Federalists had just decided to do so. Unknown to them, Andrew Jackson had won a miracle victory at New Orleans and the Federalist party was destroyed. In Korea, we drew. In Vietnam, we lost because the people didn't want to go to Vietnam and die by the thousands to subdue a people brainwashed by the Viet Cong. Plus we should have been nuked by Cuba around 1962 and nuked by the Russians over Berlin. The Romans and British were equally lucky. Rome would have been gone had Cassander not killed Alexander III of Macedon in 323 BC and they would never have been able to slander Cleopatra, screw up Christianity and destroy freedom.

I agree about Switzerland...peaceful, rich....They were not invaded in WW2

In Europe definately Switzerland. Other candidates Finland and Austria.



Switzerland is a good choice. But Finland has not been very lucky.

1, Being under Swedish rule for 700 years, who treated the Finns mainly as serfs and mercenaries (except the pay wasn't good).

2. Another 100 years under Russian rule. Actually, the Russians were much better masters, granting autonomy and letting Finland to develope. I guess you can call the Finns lucky to get rid of Swedish rule.

3. A very bloody Civil War immediately after Finland gained independence.

4. WWII, Finland defended itself against the Soviets, first alone and then with the German help. Finland wasn't occupied, but lost parts of it to the Soviet Union, including the second biggest city, Vyborg.

After all this it's amazing that today Finland has a good standard of living and very high infrastructure, but I think luck had very little to do with it. Finland hasn't been very lucky with neighbors.

Wouldn't the indigenous population have something to say about the whole "never been invaded" with regards to Australia? ;)

Unless you want to use the "as a country" argument, in which case since Australia has only existed a very short time in that context compared to say Sweden, it's rather a small point, especially when one counts how many times anyone's bothered to even try and invade Australia ;)
Japan officialy declared war on Australia in WWII.

Britian. I repeat all the beforesaaid reasons. And they're so lucky. They go in when everyone else is and the opponent is weak. WWII? Let Germany defeat France, then let's go and get it back. The Napoleonic wars? We'll fight you to the very last Prussian!

The Napoleonic wars? We'll fight you to the very last Prussian!

They did get a little more involved than that lol. In any case, it was their ability to bankroll practically the entire Allied effort that ensured Napoleon's defeat.

Britian. I repeat all the beforesaaid reasons. And they're so lucky. They go in when everyone else is and the opponent is weak. WWII? Let Germany defeat France, then let's go and get it back. The Napoleonic wars? We'll fight you to the very last Prussian!

:cool:

So true though! The English/British have managed to get through centuries of European turbulance by going through 3 simple steps:

1. Tough it out alone on Great Britain for a while. Build up forces. Mobilise industry and people. Create alliances with chums far away.

2. Take out enemy's navy and/or air force.

3. Invade Europe. Using mainly other nation's armies of course. Then as quickly as possible break the continent back up into small nations. Leave.

Repeat after 50 years of "peace".:crazyeye:

My vote goes to Ethiopia. I mean, they beat a modern European power on the battlefield, fair and square. Granted, it was the Italians, but still, it was a spearman vs rifleman scenario, where the only place a spearman could win is in CIV, and he won in real life!

^^ Three words:

Mengistu Haile Mariam

What about Mariam? I was talking about Menelik II

Britian. I repeat all the beforesaaid reasons. And they're so lucky. They go in when everyone else is and the opponent is weak. WWII? Let Germany defeat France, then let's go and get it back. The Napoleonic wars? We'll fight you to the very last Prussian!

Sorry no.
Before you start spouting out such random tosh, perhaps you would like to read some history.

Firstly
They go in when everyone else is and the opponent is weak. WWII? Let Germany defeat France
Is it just me or did Britian declare war on Germany when they invaded Poland and stood WITH France against Germany.

Will continue later off out.

What about Mariam? I was talking about Menelik II

You were talking about Ethiopia.

Sorry no.
Before you start spouting out such random tosh, perhaps you would like to read some history.

Firstly

Is it just me or did Britian declare war on Germany when they invaded Poland and stood WITH France against Germany.

Will continue later off out.

Okay, that comment I made wasn't for historical accuracy. I was just joking around a bit. Take it easy. And you have to admit that they let France take most of the damage, then started fighting, before the Germans started bombing England.

Defenitely the USA.

Okay, that comment I made wasn't for historical accuracy. I was just joking around a bit. Take it easy. And you have to admit that they let France take most of the damage, then started fighting, before the Germans started bombing England.

Sorry the BEF was it, we had a small but highly professional army, we couldnt really take that much damage with the channel and the british navy, you know.

The British army was in no state after the French campaign to preform any kind of operation. Look at the plans for the defence of the UK and what crappy fortifications were erected. Which shows we fought hard in France.

My vote goes to Ethiopia. I mean, they beat a modern European power on the battlefield, fair and square. Granted, it was the Italians, but still, it was a spearman vs rifleman scenario, where the only place a spearman could win is in CIV, and he won in real life!
Ethiopia was the only one who started to rapidly develop their military before the Imperialists came. They imported Gatling cannons and rifles and stuff, and fought and beat the Italians with modern weapons.

My vote goes to Britain.

English Channel saved them from The Spanish Armada, The French in the 100 years war, Napoleon, Ravaging German armies in WWI, Hitler, etc.

Russia is kind of in the lucky/unlucky type.

Conquered from behind by the Mongols, and slaughtered in WWI, and the famous Russian Winter saved their butts from Napoleon and Hitler.

Ethiopia was the only one who started to rapidly develop their military before the Imperialists came. They imported Gatling cannons and rifles and stuff, and fought and beat the Italians with modern weapons.
Don't forget Dahomey.

France aquired it as a colony in 1892, after it's largest military campaign in Africa (3500 French troops vs. 12.000 Dahomeans).

But the king of Dahomey had profited from the surpluses from Western wars and could arm his troops with modern rifles (Winchesters and Chassepots) and machineguns (French Reffyes w. 400.000 cartridges to expend on the French). It wasn't enough to stop the French but military modernisation was the order of the day.

When H.M. Stanley passed through Africa looking for Emin Pascha he had to tread varily around king Kabaregga of Bunyoro and his 2000 modern European rifles (American Snyders mostly).

I agree about Switzerland...peaceful, rich....They were not invaded in WW2
You would have a case if you think of recent history only (say 20th century and later). Before that Switzerland has always been a pretty poor country. And Switzerland hasn't been so peaceful as many people think. Just think of the generations of young swiss that let themself be slaughtered for other people's causes for money (which of course, was one of the results of being a pretty poor country...)

Now if you talk about the luckies nation in the 20th century, I'd have to agree with you, luck certainly favoured us then.

My vote goes to Britain.

English Channel saved them from The Spanish Armada, The French in the 100 years war, Napoleon, Ravaging German armies in WWI, Hitler, etc.


Well your vote shouldn't go to Britain. The Channel by its self would not of stopped any of the above mentioned threats, it was the investment put into the Royal Navy, which frankly wasn't luck, just plain common sense.

see thats why i love switzerland: its constitutionally neutral, theres no reason to invade it because theres really nothing there strateigically, and even if they did the swiss defence plan and fortifications are just so freakin crazy that it jus wouldnt be worth it. im changing my vote from ethiopia to switzerland

Thailand!
What 3th world nation has never been colonized by Europeans? With this the "western value" of "money is better than happyness", came a lot later than in the rest of the world. Isn't luck not about happiness, rather than "best economy" and "best operating army"?

see thats why i love switzerland: its constitutionally neutral, theres no reason to invade it because theres really nothing there strateigically, and even if they did the swiss defence plan and fortifications are just so freakin crazy that it jus wouldnt be worth it. im changing my vote from ethiopia to switzerland

well, one thing I have to congratulate the swiss army is for their international PR. It's amazing how they still are able to keep up the myth of the "Alpenfestung", the Reduit :) But frankly these fortifications were built in the 60s. Basically the swiss version of the ligne maginot (and we all know how much that one helped ;) ).

Furthermore, these fortifications are all located in the alps...but the majority of the swiss populations lives north of the alps in the plains :lol:

I agree with your first sentence, though. We got no natural ressources (safe water) that are worth taking, so there's really no point in invading us :)

"God, damn Amerika" (c) Thousands of nuked Japan citizens.

USA is the luckiest and the most mean country in world's history.
A country dictating what to do to other countries. It kills people because it thinks, that it has a right to kill people.
I pray for that day, when all combined Europe will teach to an ignorant USA a lesson.
And all US citizens, I think, should carefully watch their government, or one day, a nuclear warhead "Satan" will detonate above a New York. And those silly "Star Wars" will not protect. It is not a Civ4, it is life.

Warned for trolling. Bring your little flames elsewhere - we don't want it here. - KD

oh, i got the impression Swiss defences were state of the art. If im not mistaken though, your defences include numerous anit-air stations as well? I mean, the Maginot Line was kinda land oriented, i dont know if id go so far as to parallel them to THAT, but hey, ii guess you live there, right? I think it was in some Tom CLancy novel where they were talking about it, cant remember which though.

as I said, good PR ;)

most of our stationary anti-air defenses are obsolete, or at least old. the most modern stationary surface to air system we have is the Rapier ... other than that we only have some 35mm-flak and Stingers (where I'm stationed)

but then I don't want to give our defence departement ideas of modernizing it, we're already spending way too much on defence...

I remember seeing a very interesting TV interview of a Swiss officer, who was demonstrating some modernized system.
He showcased the new bicycle of the Swiss army, and said "it's very nice, because there is a bar here where you can fix a machinegun"

He showcased the new bicycle of the Swiss army, and said "it's very nice, because there is a bar here where you can fix a machinegun"
:rotfl:
And i thought the "modern" "defences" around here were pathetic. :lol:
Note the "" on modern- that means they were using the same things basicaly in WW1.
And the "" on defences- which means that they work only if the enemy acidentaly bumps into them in which case, the severe damage would be psychological because he wasted 1 second of his time with such pointless things. Good thing there are still some trees around. :)

well, if they are forced to cross a river ( or small stream) you can just put John Cleese on the bridge! The Black Knight conquers all!

indoubatebly
(correct spelling?)

I remember seeing a very interesting TV interview of a Swiss officer, who was demonstrating some modernized system.
He showcased the new bicycle of the Swiss army, and said "it's very nice, because there is a bar here where you can fix a machinegun"

:lol: the sad thing is, knowing our officers, he was probably dead serious

I remember seeing a very interesting TV interview of a Swiss officer, who was demonstrating some modernized system.
He showcased the new bicycle of the Swiss army, and said "it's very nice, because there is a bar here where you can fix a machinegun"

Erm, did the officer sound a little, er, simple?

Erm, did the officer sound a little, er, simple?
Indeed, he clearly spoke with a Swiss accent :mischief:

Indeed, he clearly spoke with a Swiss accent :mischief:

Poor guy. I guess he has given rise to a Swiss police officer stereotyped of being an idiot now. :D

Well, what's wrong with a bicycle with machine gun rack? Wouldn't there be any circumstances in which such a thing could be handy? Bikes can go lots of places where other vehicles can't.

Well, what's wrong with a bicycle with machine gun rack? Wouldn't there be any circumstances in which such a thing could be handy? Bikes can go lots of places where other vehicles can't.
:rotfl: You crack me up ...

Also i should say that machineguns on bicycles have not yet been invented around here. In 10-20 years that will be our most high-tech military vehicle. And i'll bump this thread just to say so. :D

EDIT: i forgot to ask for a pic of the famous bicycle prototype. :)

Well, what's wrong with a bicycle with machine gun rack? Wouldn't there be any circumstances in which such a thing could be handy? Bikes can go lots of places where other vehicles can't.

Well, the problem I think is that the bicycle is a rather light and unsteady platform for a machine gun. That's not to say however that bicycles aren't good for schlepping machine guns around. In 1914, the Royal Scots formed the 10th (cyclist) Battalion. One of the German units in Normandy in 1944 was the 30th Bicycle Brigade. The Japanese had a number of bicycle mounted units although I can't recall the designations.

The bicycle is quiet, requires no training, and is easily maintained. It is certainly better than walking! ;)

Ah, I assumed from the original description that the bike had a sort of gun rack for you to store your gun on while riding (like a water bottle) - not that the gun was actually fixed to the bike like a tank. I can see how that might not work exactly according to plan...

But it reminds me of somewhere or other where the police force has recently bought lots of mountain bikes, as they've found that this is by far the best method for officers to travel around the city. They don't get stuck in traffic and they can go on foot when necessary. Don't forget, the Japanese cycled into Singapore...

But it reminds me of somewhere or other where the police force has recently bought lots of mountain bikes, as they've found that this is by far the best method for officers to travel around the city. They don't get stuck in traffic and they can go on foot when necessary. Don't forget, the Japanese cycled into Singapore...
One of the more interesting spectacles to be seen in Paris is the bike and rollerblade patrols giving chase. They're tough guys, going after cars and whatnot, and especially the rollerblade patrol men have some wicked moves. In such a congested city strapping wheels to your feet to chase the perps makes a lot more sense than trying to go after them in a car.:D

America. A continent full of free, unclaimed, unused (for farming or settlements) land and unexploited natural resources in front of it with no effective (the Native Americans were not very organized or purposely dedicated to resisting the US and lacked the numbers to do so) opposition to deter it from expanding and a sea behind it to protect it from Europe in its infancy.

I'd say Russia, for many of the same reasons. Remember, Russia has aquired a lot more territory without having to shed a lot of blood. And now they have access to huge amounts of natural resources.

However, if the US had succeeded in bringing the northern colonies (Canada) into the revolution, I might have said the US...

indoubatebly
(correct spelling?)

undoubtably

:D

Indoubitably is also correct. :smug:

Indoubitably is also correct. :smug:

indoubitably?

I nominate Poland as the unluckiest country ever.

I nominate Poland as the unluckiest country ever.
You should make another thread about that. :) I have a nomination too.

Indoubitably is also correct. :smug:

You're surely thinking of indubitably...

Indeed, he clearly spoke with a Swiss accent :mischief:
:mad: I'll get you for that :ar15: evil frenchy

;)

:mad: I'll get you for that :ar15: evil frenchy

;)

that is really against the swiss ethic of neutrality is it not?

:lol:

:mad: I'll get you for that :ar15: evil frenchy
;)
The time it took you to react illustrate of other Swiss stereotype: ddooiinngg eevveerryy tthhiinngg sslloowwllyy.

Aha, not like the French then, who take so long to eat lunch it sometimes turns into dinner...?

Aha, not like the French then, who take so long to eat lunch it sometimes turns into dinner...?
Perhaps, but we don't eat slowly, we eat a lot, and we do a lot of other things during the meal (mainly talking)

America. A continent full of free, unclaimed, unused (for farming or settlements) land and unexploited natural resources in front of it with no effective (the Native Americans were not very organized or purposely dedicated to resisting the US and lacked the numbers to do so) opposition to deter it from expanding and a sea behind it to protect it from Europe in its infancy.

I'd say the same thing. I'm biased because I live in America, but I also say that America has been lucky in the way that the 20th century played out. America was fairly powerful in the 19th century, but its obviously the 20th century where America became a true world power. We were isolated from the rest of the world when World War I broke out, and we emerged from the war with no attacks on our soil and a booming economy. World War II was also good for the same reasons, except we emerged with an attack on Pearl Harbor. If the wars of the 20th century and the 20th century itself had played out differently, America would not occupy the same place that it does today. This is just my opinion, so don't take too much offense at what I've said here. :)

America, what other nation can gain independence from the superpower of its time, and then in less than 200 years become the only superpower.

Standing on the shoulders of Giants :D

Sorry had to say that.

I don't think any nation was lucky you make your own luck when it comes to historical acquistion, also England lost everything because of fighting too. If that was luck it's proof that doesn't last indefinitely.

I'd say the same thing. I'm biased because I live in America, but I also say that America has been lucky in the way that the 20th century played out. America was fairly powerful in the 19th century, but its obviously the 20th century where America became a true world power. We were isolated from the rest of the world when World War I broke out, and we emerged from the war with no attacks on our soil and a booming economy. World War II was also good for the same reasons, except we emerged with an attack on Pearl Harbor. If the wars of the 20th century and the 20th century itself had played out differently, America would not occupy the same place that it does today. This is just my opinion, so don't take too much offense at what I've said here. :)

The problem is, do you measure the "luck" of a nation purely by how powerful it is on the global stage? Surely that's just "mine is bigger than yours" taken to a geopolitical level - it doesn't make any difference to the people who actually live in the country in question. If you look at other criteria, such as social equity etc, the US is by no means the least lucky country in the world but it's hardly the most lucky. From that point of view, surely Brunei should top the list - incredible wealth and living standards for all citizens, and it's certainly luck that brought it - rather handy oil reserves.

[Sidhe] If we're talking about making your own luck, then Singapore is the obvious candidate - extremely high living standards and very little poverty, achieved through sheer hard work in the absence of natural resources and anything else.

I know about undoutably, but I was thinking about the English synonom indubitably. So we are sure, it is indubitably?

Without any doubt.

that is really against the swiss ethic of neutrality is it not?

:lol:

nope, neutrality just means that if you get beaten up by a bully we can look away and claim we're neutral :mischief:

The time it took you to react illustrate of other Swiss stereotype: ddooiinngg eevveerryy tthhiinngg sslloowwllyy.
:blush: you got me there :lol:

:blush: you got me there :lol:
France - Switzerland: 2 - 0

New Zealand. No wars or social unrest (to my knowledge :p) EVER.

The Maori-Pakeha wars of the 1860s? The suppression of Te Whiti? And there's plenty of social unrest in the ghettos of the North Island these days.

Also, they were pretty unlucky in the 1980s, when the French government ordered what was basically an act of war on New Zealand (sinking the Rainbow Warrior and killing several members of its crew) and the international community did absolutely nothing about it - despite David Lange pleading with the US and others.

Besides this, New Zealand is in the unfortunate position of having some of the most beautiful landscapes in the world coupled with some of the ugliest towns. The main reason why it's still a beautiful country is simply that there aren't many people, and there are very extensive national parks. Most of the places where people live are quite ugly and spoliated, in particular because of the mass deforestation that the Maori began and the Pakeha completed. Compared to population, New Zealand is one of the most polluting countries in the world (all those wood-burners!) - it maintains its "green" image mainly by having a low population.