RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Ethiopia (known as Abyssinia at the time, I believe) was occupied by Italy in 1936.
AFAIK, it was the longest-independent non island country
Ethiopia (known as Abyssinia at the time, I believe) was occupied by Italy in 1936.
I admit, that a very very very very long record. But Im despite, the misleading-ness of the Topic title, Im talking about from now all the way to the time they were last occupied. So now is 2009, last time Japan occupied 1945. 64 years. Shame though.
Scotland (since it gave over to the UK voluntarily) has never been ooccupied
Yes, but all kinds of calls about national freedom and unity are tricky for the Medieval period. The whole idea of countries tend not to work quite as "supposed" before the early modern period at least.I'm no expert on the Medieval period but I'm pretty sure that the English occupied Scotland at least twice in the space of half a century. After all, its rather hard to fight two wars of independence if you have no foreign occupying power to fight against...
Vietnam was invaded at least 15 times by China, and a 7 more times by France, Japan, USA, Siam and Khmer, the last one being in 1976. What mention? Wouldn't Venezuela be "freed" from Gran Colombian occupation in 1830. They had to fight a rebellion after all.p
The op said longest time not under occupation, not longest time still not under occupation.
is supposed to indicate that.1) Once a country has been occupied, no matter how long it had previously spent unoccupied, the record is reset. (Like the cultural points of a newly captured city)
Occupation is different from Invasion. The op said longest time not under occupation, not longest time still not under occupation. The time between the 20th century and the last time it got 'occupied' i mean.
As for Venezuela, ounce Simon Bolivar's dream of a united northern Latin america faded away in the dreams of the populous, people realized that Venezuela would be better off alone rather than sharing it's vast wealth with the much poorer regions to the west and south. If Gran Colombia continued than there would be a huge difference in range of resources between Venezuela and Colombia/rest of the countries. I think being smaller was better and the people realized that. There must of been some people against that. Perhaps the dumber more nationalist ones who still dreamed Bolivar's dream, which could be the reason of the rebellion.
Gran Colombia was Venezuelan dominated, it was more like a big country ditching it's territories for the greater good. Venezuela is pretty much a continuation of Gran Colombia, but in a new name.
I think Bhutan has a pretty solid argument that it hasn't been occupied for something like 360 years.
Okay, if Venezuela ditched Gran Colombia, then exactly what year was it of Gran Colombian/Venezuela independence? Wiki gives me a very vague idea with three independence dates and two crushing by Spain and both a Venezuelan and Gran Colombian Independence before 1830.
What do you mean? the date when the union ended was 1831, but it collapsed in 1830.
That evaluation is rather simplistic. Aside from the fact that he was legally offered the throne as the spouse of a legitimate claimant, who also reigned as monarch, the Glorious Revolution, in itself, represented the final shift of the Kingdom of England towards constitutional monarchy and the last of Stuart absolutism. It'd be an odd foreign occupation, after all, which presided over the transfer of power to a native parliament.The parliament didn't invite Mary and William, a few nobles on their own account did. When they landed, the English were like "Ooh! An opportunity" and defected. And William did threatened the Parliament that he would leave with his Army unless he was made King (not Prince-Consort as the Parliament wanted). A foreign head of State forcing himself on the throne sounds quite like a foreign occupation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela_(first_republic)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela_(second_republic)
And there is like number 3 more Venezuela's so Im all confused...
What about being a protectorate of Britain? I know that protectorates does not mean annexation or occupation, but Malaya, Brunei and various western African lands were Protectorates and dominated by British Rule in its politics. Though I am unsure whether or not the invisible but very large hands of Britain were in Bhutan as they were in its other Protectorate.