Casus belli, then?
The acquisition of new land and soil for the settling of the superfluous population has no end of advantages…
For Germany, therefore, the only possibility of carrying out a sound territorial policy was to be found in the acquisition of new soil in Europe Proper…
If one wanted land and soil in Europe, then by and large this could only have been done a Russia’s expense…
For such a policy, however, there was only one single ally in Europe: England.
- Adolf Hitler, from Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter IV, “Munich”
I don’t know what the pretext for Operation Barbarossa was, but Germany was quite vocal in disputing that its invasion of Poland was for reasons of conquest. It claimed that the Polish army had attacked a German radio tower; the German assault was therefore in retaliation of this, and also to safeguard ethnic Germans living in Poland.
the Invasion by Argentina of the Falklands? 1982, but Iraq and the Q8 invasion was even more recent
If they waited for an excuse, then the conflict is disqualified. The OP is asking about conflicts which were openly wars of conquest, not those which had some pretext (valid or otherwise).
The stated reason, for propaganda purposes, was that the Soviet Union was poised to attack Germany, i.e. preemptive war. (Of course the Soviet Union was not prepared for attack at that time, not even really for defense). The case made for aggressive intentions of the Soviet Union was that they had annexed the Baltics and Eastern Poland i.e. essentially that they had done when Germany had agreed to in the secret protocol of the Molotov-Robbentrop pact.
The original stated intention of Hitler was that he wanted ethnic German areas to belong to Germany. The problem with this was that most ethnic areas blend smoothly into their neighbours. Having lost the first war, Germany saw the “mixed” areas given tothe winners and their friends. Hence the anschluss, the Czech lands (since we’re moving in anyway, might as well take the whole country), Poland (since they seem to object to giving up anzig and Silesia, and northern France (since they seem to object to giving up Alsace and Lorraine). After that, it was out-and-out war, so hit your enemies and outflank them before they organize and hit you.
This results in the basis of the United Nations - borders are sacrosanct. If a country begins arguing borders because of ethnic groups being split or combined, then almost every border - especially the arbitrary African ones, but including Europe and much of Asia, and especially Cyprus - can be disputed. Border disputes are the path to chaos. Many wars have been over either “uniting all our peoples” or “protecting our own X from the persecutions of the evil Y”. Tribalism/nationalism rings deep in the heart.
Their reasoning was that the Malvinas are theirs by rights and the UK are the invaders: they were liberating them.
Goa.
And in the cases of Hyderabad, Goa, and Kashmir, the Indian government always had a legitimating argument of some kind. In the case of Goa, it was along the lines of “the age of colonialism is over and it’s time to free the people of Goa from a foreign ruler.”
Right, because who wants the -3 stability hit?
Exactly. You’re already getting -1 for attacking a country with the same faith anyway.
As Nava alluded to, Argentina both then and now asserts that the Falklands/Malvinas are part of its national territory.
However, this points to something I’m struggling with in this thread. What exactly do we mean by a “pretext”? I don’t recall that the then Argentine government claimed a specific pretext “forcing” them to invade/liberate the islands at that particular point in time: they certainly operated in accordance with a sort of “long-term pretext”, but didn’t offer up a “short-term pretext”.
France declared war on Germany, not the other way around!
Except that this isn’t the basis of the UN (although it is a fundamental principle of the African Union).
Countless UN members have border disputes with other UN members. It’s only when wider interests are affected, or when armed “settlement” of the dispute is threatened (or actually occurs) that anyone else gets interested.
Saddam did have a pretext. He claimed that Kuwait was “slant drilling” and stealing Iraq’s oil deposits. The war was ostensibly to stop the theft of natural resources. Wikipedia (sorry, couldn’t find a better cite) has this to say:
There’s always Wikipedia’s source material. (Don’t worry; I overlooked the importance of those anchors for years!)
That “[13]” you copied and pasted was actually a link to a footnote giving Wikipedia’s source for the claim. All Wikipedia articles are supposed to contain such references, preferably to primary sources. (Not all of them do yet, but contributors are working on it.)