[LINK] Last Call - Was - In Retirement on this thread

[Richard Chirgwin]

"Purchased not invaded". More feasible than "invaded".

In modern history, how many times has there been a successful invasion, 
at continental scale, when the invasion was resisted by someone with 
resources comparable to that of the invader?

I can think of one such example: D-Day, which required international 
co-operation (ie more than one invader), and if historians are right, 
could have failed. It also required the invaded party - Germany - to be 
already under resource-stress, and Germany was defending territory that 
wasn't its home territory.

Finally, Australia is seriously big. No territory of Australia's scale 
has ever been "invaded" against a comparable defender. Actually, I don't 
think it's ever actually been attempted.

RC

On 2/07/12 4:01 PM, Richard Archer wrote:
> On 2/07/12 2:58 PM, TKoltai wrote:
>>   For a population as small as we have on a continent as large as
>>   Australia, the Swiss example may be the only logical long term
>>   option.
> Misattributed to Yamamoto, but a great quote nonetheless:
>
> "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle
> behind every blade of grass."
>
> There would be rifles behind most gum trees if Australia was invaded. At
> least I would hope so!
>
> But it seems we're perfectly happy to sell all our most productive
> country (mines, farmland) to overseas interests, so no doubt we will be
> purchased not invaded.
>
> ...R.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>