Talk:List of invasions

message: The Gaza strip invasion in 2009 by Israel happened on 3 January. I added it. --SamB135 (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Did the Yom Kippur War qualify as an invasion? Plasma east 02:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Israeli invasion of Gaza

message: American Revolutionary War: how is this an invasion?
:This entry has now been removed. --Zigger «º» 04:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  invasion of US by Britain 

message: 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.
:Added to the list. --Zigger «º» 04:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This question of what technically constitutes an invasion is an interesting one. Discussions like this keep me on Wikipedia. There are dictionary definitions of course. But dictionaries fail to describe subtleties and nuances. For example:
*As discussed above, is armed suppression of what is perceived as an insurrection against a lawfully constituted state an invasion? (Eg, American Revolutionary War, the Chechnyan war -if I spelt it right-,the English counter-attack against Prince Charles Stuart in 1742).
*Is the incursion into territory to which the aggressor has, or claims to have,a lawful claim, an invasion? Or when the aggressor has a mandate in international law to act? (Eg., the incursion of King Henry V into France to claim the throne, the 1991 Iraqi attack upon Kuwait- Iraq claimed it was part of Iraq- , and the subsequent counter-attack on the part of the US and its allies, mandated by the UN)
*Is an armed incursion to attempt to expel an occupying power an invasion? (Eg., the UK counter-attack against Argentina in the Falklands)
*Is an incursion into the territory of one side during a civil war an invasion? Can a state invade its own sovereign soil?
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)

text: Yes, some argument worth considering there. But how do you judge a 'full scale invasion' or a 'large army'? After all, it depends a lot on historical assessment. In the middle ages, for example, European armies rarely numbered over several thousand. Yet even these could 'change the landscape forever' as you neatly put it. Henry V's force that defeated the French at Agincourt in 1415 was tiny, even by the standards of the time, but it did change the political landscape of France on a grand scale. In more recent times, the occupation of Grenada by US troops was almost trivial in military terms, yet to Granada it was a momentous event with profound consequences. We should also note that what we often call 'invasions' do not need to involve great forces in a short period. Australia, for example, was occupied by European settlers incrementally, over a period of a century or more. There were pitched battles against the indigenous peoples, but never more than a handful of troops was ever deployed in one location.  Similarly, the invasion of Britain by the Angles and Saxons was gradual, and not involving large forces. So I would suggest again we go by what are named invasions in popular and scholarly parlance.--Gazzster (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  invasion of Russia by allies  

message: usualy list start in the ancient era en and and in the modern era right or am I wrong ?
:This is probably best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Timeline, but Timeline Europe and Graphical timeline of our universe are other examples in Wikipedia of vertical timelines using a downward metaphor for earlier dates.  For this particular list, the sequence has the advantage of placing the more recognised recent events at the top for immediate viewing, while the older events, which will remain less comprehensive due to less historical records, are at the end. --Zigger «º» 03:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeline 

message: 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)
replies: text: From the current Republic of Serbian Krajina and Republika Srpska and related articles, there was no international recognition of sovereignty for these regions, so there was no international border and therefore no international invasion.  Related discussion is at Talk:Republic of Serbian Krajina and Talk:Republika Srpska, which is where consensus on recognition should be established, or try editing the RSK/RS articles adding references.  --Zigger «º» 05:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two weren't internationally recognized, but they indeed were partially recognized. Then again, why isn't a military an "invasion" if it invades another entity and a brutal war campaign follows? Just before the modern world, there were no international recognitions - but invasions up to the Ancient World are listed in the article. --PaxEquilibrium 21:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sections with ancient invasions will never be as comprehensive as recent sections, and as the the list grows they may be split out to a separate list with separate criteria for a number of reasons.   (Currently the listed ancient invasions mostly relate to notable territorial/imperial expansion.)  The actions that follow an invasion are not relevant to this list.  The RSK and RS articles and the Dayton Agreement (with the full text linked from that article) all describe the regions as entities.  The Dayton Agreement clearly distinguishes between "sovereign independent States within their international borders" and component "Entities", despite the ability of those entities to be represented as parties to the Agreement.  Hopefully a more detailed discussion of "partial recognition" would be welcomed at the relevant articles' talk pages.  --Zigger «º» 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But lets say (hypothetically speaking) Serbia invades Kosovo with a full-scale military operation ("invasion") bent on securing (restoring) control of every inch of the territory (a lot of people die in the war; even more refugees, the same horrible thing yet again, blah, blah, blah...). Would that Operation be listed here? --PaxEquilibrium 20:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
replies: text: They were re-added, along with a bunch of other air raids, and I've just removed them. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any air raid technically constitutes an invasion, as it entails an invasion of a sovereign state's airspace.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.229.186.1 (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiroshima and Nagasaki 

message: 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)
thread_title: Pearl Harbor not an invasion

message: 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)
replies: text: IP editors have been inserting all sorts of Vietnam-related stuff to this page which aren't actually invasions. Be bold in removing stuff that strikes you as blatantly inaccurate. Cheers, cab 01:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion of Thailand by Vietnam? 

message: 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)
replies: text: And another point- is it correct to speak of a nation's counter-incursion into its own violated sovereign soil an invasion? Example: the UK and the Falklands. Isn't this rather a defensive action?--Gazzster (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion in terminology

message: 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)
replies: text: Nope, wrong on so many counts.   far from being invited in, the incumbent ruler of the country had refused Soviet "assistance", the Russians invaded, removed the Afghan president and installed a puppet Government.  A classic Soviet invasion of a satellite that did not fall into line.  Justin talk 21:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghan War 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Turkish invasions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2008 invasion of Ecuador by Colombian military 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1965 indo pak war 

message: 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)
replies: text: They did not control the whole part of the country, the northern alliance also controlled parts of it, at least it should list it as Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and Northern Alliance considering that US forces entered their territory as well. - SantiLak (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is common for countries to not control all their territory. The Northern Alliance was not invaded because it was cooperating with coalition forces. DylanLacey (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taliban 

message: 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)
thread_title:  US occupation of Iceland 

message: Hanam190552 (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Bombing another country cannot be defined as an invasion.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, bombing another country or conducting an air raid is technically an invasion, as it entails an INVASION of a sovereign state's airspace.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.229.186.1 (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  US' bombings North Vietnam were invasions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1019 Invasion of Japan by Jurchen Pirates 

message: 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)
thread_title: invansion 1594 of turks into HRE

message: "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)
replies: text: Do we have an WP:RS calling it an invasion? Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Invasion of Hawaiian Kingdom. 

message: I removed 2014 American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War and  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)
replies: text: Being illegally in a country with Government opposing your presence is an invasion. As well as an occupation. A4516416 (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia content is based on what reliable sources say, not on the interpretation of individual editors (WP:OR). Do reliable sources call this an invasion? If not, it fails WP:V. Bondegezou (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any further comment and no reliable sources being forthcoming, I have re-removed this. Bondegezou (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2014 American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1917 British invasion of Hungary. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The 1992 invasion of Bosnia 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Source for "2014 invasion of Ukraine" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2011 NATO air campaign in Libya 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2016 invasion of Syria 

message: Dear , 
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)
replies: text: 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'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)
replies: text:  It's not WP:OTHERSTUFF, it's part of the page that makes it able to be discussed. If we want to make the page consistent then we have to discuss what's on the page. also it's not my view. Here is a reliable source calling the ENDF invasion of Tigray an invasionhttps://www.vox.com/22370629/ethiopia-tigray-eritrea-amhara-war-ethnic-cleansing. Here is one calling TPLF invasion outside of Tigray an invasion. https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/government-offensive-pushes-forward-scars-war-dot-ethiopias-amhara-region-2021-12-10/ here is one for the Azerbaijani offensive into the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh.https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/06/21/gaza-nagorno-karabakh-future-conflict-drones/--Garmin21 (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Those three using the term invasion vaguely. Invasion occurs when you invade foreign soil. Is this all you could find?  . 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)
replies: text:  Is Anjouan, Chechnya, and Biafra foreign soil? What do we even consider foreign soil? Is it what the UN decides or is it what the entity being invaded decides? Nagorno-Karabakh considers itself foreign soil. Do we include just UN member states or do we also include UN non-member states? What about Taiwan? They aren't a UN member or non-member state yet multiple counties recognize them. See this is definitely not as clear-cut as you trying to make it. --Garmin21 (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

text: We should be guided, as in all things, by reliable, secondary sources. The threshold for inclusion should be whether most reliable secondary sources describe something as an invasion. Bondegezou (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I call this WP:OR. Because one news article used the word? You could implement it 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war here as well. Stick to the mainstream please. Beshogur (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't dug into these cases in detail, but, yes, I don't think  has clearly demonstrated that most reliable sources describe these as invasions. Bondegezou (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent edits