[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Yes, but Australia and New Zealand were formed by the conquest of each country from it’s native inhabitants.
Of course, we’re getting into true scotsman territory here if we argue that neither has expanded because neither is a “powerful nation”. But Australia and New Zealand both have what can be considered natural borders. Territorial expansion would require the annexation of some island chain or another, and most of those island chains were for the longest time the property of one colonial power or another, just as Australia and New Zealand themeselves were. No European country has invaded and annexed any island chains in the post-WWII era either. The only such invasion that comes to mind is the Argentine invasion of the Falklands.
[/QUOTE]
I was addressing Pleonast’s question only, which is why I quoted it. He/she restricted to post [ww2] war expansionism. (And is also why I stipulated “since they were formed”, aka independent of the UK, as well. I am well aware that folks were living there when the Europeans showed up.)
The Australians seized the Bismark Archipeligo in 1914, true, but I don’t think that the archipeligo was a “war aim” (ie, the main prewar reason Australia went to war against the Central Powers), but more of a target of opportunity. My opinion only, you may disagree..
The Japanese seized the Caroline and Marshall Island groups as a “war aim”, however. (Once Japan seized German ships and islands in the PTO, they pretty much sat out the rest of the war.) In Contrast, Australia committed substantial forces to European and Palestinian campaigns, with no expectations of territorial aquisitions in those areas.
Wow… So much lack of historical knowledge that the universities of the world should be ashamed.
I guess, first question: Does it matter that when the U.S. won the Mexican War that we paid them money for the territories?
It’s an important question. I don’t remember Alexander the Great, or the Romans, for examples, paying anyone for conquered territories.
The U.S. would control almost half of the world by now if we did not simply GIVE back territories that our men in uniform spilled blood to liberate people from foreign invaders.
Iraq? Some of you want to say we occupy Iraq? I guess you would rather have been fed feet first into a shredder by Saddam Hussein, than to live under the American “oppression” that gives you freedom to live, work, and associate.
But life is worse now than it was under Saddam! You say… Blame that on the terrorist assholes in Iraq, not us!!!
It’s amazing how much grief the U.S. takes for the actions of other countries…
I suppose one could argue that after India’s acquisition of Goa in 1961, it has ceased to be territorially expansionst. India is the hegemonic power on the subcontinent, and in a one-to-one matchup, could invade and annex any of its neighbors, with the exception of China.
India did annex Sikkim in 1975, but that was after a popular referendum in Sikkim which approved annexation (although I have heard people dispute the validity of the referendum, though IMO these arguments are weak).
Although there is a fierce anti-colonial streak in Indian politics, and I think you would find a number of people in India who would not approve of an invasion of its neighbors to acquire territory (with the exception of Kashmir and China), there are significant national security reasons it doesn’t territorially expand on its neighbors (an attempted annexation of Pakistan could prompt Chinese intervention, would create an extremely large insurgency in acquired territory, and could result in the deployment of nuclear weapons, for example).
As for Kashmir and China, India’s position is that Pakistan and China have illegally occupied Indian territory. These are subjects for another thread, and China, I think, has a better argument against India’s claims than Pakistan, but if you buy India’s view, then those claims aren’t territorially expansionist.
India does have an ongoing border dispute with Bangladesh, but once again, if you buy India’s position, then it’s not being territorially expansionist.
So, to sum up, India could qualify if you ignore the outside reasons which it doesn’t invade and accept India’s claims as to its territorial boundaries.
[QUOTE=mswas]
Yeah, I don’t think that’s how it works at all. Oil distribution is a matter of treaties between countries and not simply ‘show me the money’.
[/QUOTE]
Politics has a part for sure, but it isn’t a major part and it usually is based upon what the selling country wants to do with its oil. eg. according to the link below Mexico only sells 50% of its oil to the US to avoid becoming dependant on the US market. The link goes in depth regarding Oil from start to finish.
[QUOTE=BrightNShiny]
I suppose one could argue that after India’s acquisition of Goa in 1961, it has ceased to be territorially expansionst. India is the hegemonic power on the subcontinent, and in a one-to-one matchup, could invade and annex any of its neighbors, with the exception of China.
<snip lots of cool stuff I didn’t know about India>
[/QUOTE]
The problem with attempting to argue that Indian claims aren’t based on a desire to be expansionistic, but instead are merely a result of diplomatic disagreements with other nations is that many expansionistic efforts are done in the same light. One might argue that American expansion in the 19th century, guided by the philosophy of manifest destiny, was merely the US wresting control of land that was rightfully theirs, but that other nations laid claim to.
Furthermore, saying that India can’t be considered to be expansionistic after the '61 takeover of Goa (surely an expansionistic act), seems a little strange. Because Britain hasn’t fought a territorial war since the Falklands doesn’t remove the British Empire from a list of expansionistic powers, nor does the fact that the US hasn’t added territory since 1898 stop America from being perceived as a expansionistic nation.
I think that because part of how we define “powerful” in terms of nation-states necessarily involves acting on an ability to affect other nations means that the OP isn’t going to get a very good example for this question.
[QUOTE=mlees]
I think that Australia and New Zealand have not projected their power outside their own borders for the purposes of conquest, since the formation of their respective countries..
[/QUOTE]
New Zealand has no offensive Air Force, and the NZ Army only has 7,000 personnel. The only countries they’d be capable of conquering by military force are places like Fiji, Samoa and Tonga- and there’s no reason for them to do any of that anyway.
[QUOTE=mswas]
No, the tribes that bordered the Helvetians asked the Romans into their lands to help them fight the invading Helvetians. There wasn’t a united ‘Gaul’ until Vercingetorix united them against Caesar.
[/QUOTE]
What does being united have to do with it? During the American Civil War both sides called themselves Americans.
He/she restricted to post [ww2] war expansionism. (And is also why I stipulated “since they were formed”, aka independent of the UK, as well. I am well aware that folks were living there when the Europeans showed up.)