Talk:Invasion

Major examples in history

I set up a list of major historical invasions. I'm not sure whether to put short sections under each noting their significance or just to leave them as a simple list. On the one hand, adding summaries would make the invasion article more interesting; on the other hand, some might consider the information redundant. Anyone have any input on this? I'll be happy to write short summaries on each of them if anybody thinks that will help the article.

As a side note, I did not include the 2003 Invasion of Iraq because in terms of historical significance, I don't really think it can stand alongside the diaspora of the Israelites by the Assyrians, or Cortez' destruction of the Aztecs. It's certainly not a point I'm going to argue over, though, so if someone else thinks it's major enough to include, go for it.

By the way, I moved the Alien invasion thing to a "see also" reference. I felt it didn't really fit in with the tone of this article, but those who find this article while looking for that will still be able to jump to it. Kafziel 20:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that, at least at this point in time, the 2003 Invasion of Iraq is not (yet?) of great historical significance. It might be useful, however, to include some examples of ongoing or recent invasions. At the other end of the timeframe, the first example might more properly be labeled a "legendary" invasion, as it is not universally accepted as "historical": see History of ancient Israel and Judah. --Sentience 00:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I would go so far as to call it "legendary" just because a minor number of historians dispute it. I'm far from accepting the Bible as an authoritative source of history, but in this case the Bible isn't the only source. It seems the real debate among historians is not whether it happened, but whether a Jewish diaspora was really a significant event. I certainly don't want to get into that debate with anyone and bog down the improvements to this article.

At the risk of getting into a different debate, though, I'm having a hard time understanding the reference to the Soviet "invasion" of Germany, Poland, etc. As I understand it, most of those "invasions" were actually agreed-upon occupations under the Potsdam Agreement (East Germany) and/or partnerships under the Warsaw Pact (Poland, Hungary, etc.). Sure, there was a lot of Soviet control there, but I don't see it as an invasion. Most of it came about as a result of Russia's victories in WWI and WWII. Most of those countries agreed (at least at the beginning) that a partnership with Russia was the best way to protect themselves from NATO. The few armed conflicts that did come about were in response to attempts to break the pacts (like the Hungarian revolution) and wouldn't really qualify as major invasions in and of themselves. In my opinion, calling them invasions is POV. Kafziel 15:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I see that people are continuing to add their 'gay invasions' and that this list could go on growing. As such it distorts the function of the article. I now doubt that the list in this article has any useful function as there is already on Wikipedia a List of invasions. I therefore suggest, in accordance with WP guidelines, that we delete the list here as a duplication, - Smerus 09:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If there are examples on the list that you don't feel merit inclusion, let's discuss it. But this section is quite different than the List of invasions. It's much more selective, and it has a summary of the importance of each example. It's not just a list. If it grows, so what? How do summaries of major invasions detract from an article about invasions? Obviously it's a popular and interesting section, which is why people are adding to it. Why would the fact that people like it mean it should be deleted? That doesn't make sense.

True, deciding what constitutes "major" is subjective. Some editors feel the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel doesn't merit inclusion, because they say it's just a myth. I personally didn't include Operation Barbarossa because I felt it's outcome was too similar to Napoleon's invasion, which we already have. So opinions vary. If you feel the list is too long or too open-ended, let's set some criteria. A minimum number of troops (relative to the time period)? A minimum area of land that was captured? I would say that an invasion that led to the destruction of a whole society (like the Israelites or the Aztecs) warrants mention. Some may disagree. So does anyone have suggestions for criteria here, rather than just deleting the whole section? Kafziel 13:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not the examples, they're all fine. It's just that everyone (and I was an early culprit) will just go on adding invasions that they want to see until the whole article is subverted. There is already a List of invasions on WP. That's what we should refer people to, and we should keep the article to writing about invasion. If you (or I, or anyone) think the info on List of invasions is insufficient, we can add the brief descriptions there. You can see that we're already wasting time and energy on this sideshow without devoting the care we should to the article as a whole - Smerus 18:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with not using the list if that's what everyone wants. From the beginning, I wasn't sure if people wanted it here. I do, however, think that if what we are working toward is a feature-quality article, we need to have more than just a few huge paragraphs about the theory of invasions. We can't get this to be a featured article if all we do is use 10,000 words to define "invasion". We need pictures, we need examples, we need some variety in there. I'm not sure how else to do it. The topic doesn't really lend itself to charts or graphs.

I really do think the examples here are much more informative than the list page; the summaries themselves are wikified and link to even more related topics. And besides - we're working on this page, not the list page. That page is never going to be a feature. (As a side note, I think most list pages are absolutely worthless.)

Maybe we can take a simple poll here and see if everyone thinks the list should be removed completely or pared down to 3 or 4 examples based on what people think are the best ones to keep. That would have been my original idea, but I was trying to avoid being ethno-centric by only choosing European and Judeo-Christian settings (you can't please all of the people all of the time). The list is bound to fluctuate over time, but while we work toward featured status it might help to choose just a couple. If a vote would waste too much time, I can cut it down myself. Kafziel 18:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

My attempt at rewrite

I thought it right to put things in perspective - e.g. to talk about what an invasion is, generically, before getting on to modern interpretations of 'intervention'. The previous narrative was very 'front-loaded' with talk of invasions typically being opposed by native fredom fighters, which is quite a moderrn development - normally they were opposed by the armies of the invaded countries! In the definition I have used the slightly clumsy idea of 'geo-political entities' - but the fact is that invasions have been going on for a long time before states came into being, In Neanderthal times doubtless the tribe of one valley would set out to conquer the adjacent one which had better water, pasturage, etc.

I added the Crusades ot the list as this was a large (for its time) long-term operation with important political consequences both for the invaders and those invaded. There are also a lot of forgotten invasions which had major consequence s- e.g. Russia's invasion of Siberia in the 17th-19th centuries.

Anyway, it's a start. - Smerus 22:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)}

Good addition of the Crusades. I agree that there are a lot of other invasions that could be added to the list. Certainly the Norman Conquest is one of the most influential western events in history. I just figured I'd make sure everyone was on board with the idea of having this list. I do think it has potential here.

I also agree that there was too much modern perspective in the previous version. Good changes. Kafziel 22:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

COTW: Suggested framework

Following are some suggestions for a framework. I'm about to go on holiday, can't possibly deliver any of it this week, and lack references, so please be extra bold in ignoring/adapting the ideas!

Sections:

• Intro

Definition. Explain difference between a war and an invasion. Summarise following sections. Note that use of euphemisms by invaders is not modern. Mention commercial and population invasions.

• Sovereignty and international law

...

• Motivation

...

• Military aspects
  • - Preparation on both sides

Include manipulation of public opinion, military logistics, gathering of military intelligence and use for planning, establishment of military alliances, build-up of arms and manpower, positioning of resources, advantage of surprise.

Mention permanent defences and hasty ones, and technologies for defending various types of territory.

• • - Invading & defending

Include use of logistics, use of military intelligence, use of alliances.

Various fighting strategies on both sides.

Short-term effect on civilian population

• • - Governing

Different types of post-invasion governments.

• Ongoing impact

Long-term effects on borders, cultures, population genetics, languages, and politics.

• Notable invasions and series of invasions

Say why they are notable. There is already a list of invasions that I moved out of this article a couple of years ago.

In contrast, examples in previous sections should be used to illustrate points and could be any of: the earliest example, the latest example, the clearest example, or the biggest example. Beware of the most famous example, as it may not be famous on the invading side, and may be famous for different reasons on each side.

• References

... ... ...

Changes over time should probably be throughout the article rather than a separate history section. Pictures ...?
— Zigger «º» 14:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a good outline for what the article should be, the only minor thing is that I would change the title "Ongoing effects" to either Consequences or Aftermath. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 05:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC). Yeah, good outline. Jens Nielsen 21:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Types of Invasion?

I thought, in an article relating to invasions, it might not be a bad idea to go over the basics before you get into famous invasions...it sort of gives an understanding of how the invasions work. Granted, I'm no expert, but I provided a base where hopefully people can contribute more and perhaps include textbook examples. 65.9.53.125 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This article should either be renamed "Military invasion" or back up to a more general definition of the word. There are pathological invasions and invasions of insects and other pests. And these are not just metaphorical extensions of the military use since the word simply means "to go in." –Shoaler (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'd say an article about pests should be called "Insect invasion" or something similar, maybe with a note at the top of this page alerting users where to find it. Actually, there's already an article entitled Infestation that deals with bugs, so we could just direct to that. It's small, but maybe you could improve it. If by "pathological invasion" you mean a crime similar to burglary, there's a page for that, too, at Home invasion. I think people researching invasions are most likely to be looking for the military type. Since it's the most obvious definition, I don't think it should have a qualifier in the title. Doing that just makes it harder to find. Kafziel 05:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Since this article already has a link at the top to the disambiguation page, I added both of the articles you suggested to the list on that page. Hope that helps. Kafziel 05:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have *SERIOUS* concerns about how other types of conflicts other than invasions have been classified on the leading paragraph into the article. The errors are so serious I thought I should say something right away before this becomes a featured article.

"Smaller and lighter tactical infiltrations are not generally considered invasions, being more often classified as skirmishes, sorties, targeted killings, assassinations or reconnaissance in force."

The types of conflict classified as skirmishes are correct. Those are conflicts between opposing groups across a border or mostly taking place in a small area of a country. However sorties and reconnaissance in force only take place in the context of a war that may or may not have as it's final objective an invasion. A military action that does not have the objective of taking and holding ground that has the effect that I think is intended by this statement is a "Raid" - a style of warfare that has been used to great effect for several thousand years. Most recently, this has been used by Ethoipia against Somalia in their current conflict.

Targeted killings and assassinations have no place in this sort of discussion at all. Dobbs 16:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Too late! The language you removed is featured on Wikipedia's front page right now. ;) Good fix, though. PubliusFL 00:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for major invasion?

There should be some rough criteria for what is here considered a major invasion, and the examples listed should link to enough information to judge on the scale of the invasions. I just checked one, the Soviet 1945 invasion of Austria etc, and I did not get much of an idea what it was about or how many troops were committed. I suggest it be removed for the time being. Also, to make this a really good article, we must be very careful to avoid geopolitical bias (i.e. not only the invasion we read about in our European/American schoolbooks). Jens Nielsen 16:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on this example. See my earlier comments about it above, in the "major examples in history" section. I'm going to go ahead and remove that particular item for now, pending further clarification. Kafziel 16:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

About the criteria, I've been looking at it two ways: record size (biggest invasion ever, most land conquered, etc) and overall social impact (clear cause of other wars, opened new roads for colonization, paradigm shifts in society, etc). There are certainly others that can be added (Alexander the Great's conquests is another obvious one). Kafziel 17:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, I wouldn't be opposed to using some other word besides "major". I just used that to start the section. I see Smerus has changed the title to Some major historical battles, which is a good idea. That allows for the fact that we can't include every single invasion and that opinions may vary. Kafziel 17:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The Soviet invasion of Eastern Europe was the main cause of the fall of the Nazis. Hitler was one day from victory over British airforces but decided it was time to dedicate more resources to the Eastern front. The Soviet invasion of Eastern Europe is the reason the European Second World War ended. The invasion consisted of a number of battles, perhaps the largest of which was the Battle of Berlin to which the Soviets commited 2.5 million troops. This invasion not only caused the downfall of Nazi Germany but also their surrender and the suicide of Adolf Hitler. --Oldak Quill 19:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that seems to me a good case for inclusion, if linked to an article with similar (and sourced) information. --Jens Nielsen 21:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I misunderstood it as it was originally; I thought it was meant to be about the post war takeovers of those various countries (the iron curtain, so to speak).

Still, if you look above to section 1, it looks like some editors are leaning toward reducing the list drastically. The Russian invasion (and almost certainly the German invasion of France) may not make the cut, which would make our point here moot. Voice your opinions up in that section so we can keep this conversation in the same place. Kafziel 21:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggested criteria: number of troops participating in the invasion. 'Major' should relate to size. I can't see any invasion with 1000 troops, however important in its consequences, as a 'major' invasion. --Jens Nielsen 21:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

More examples of significant invasions:

• The Normans invading England in 1066
• Japanese invasions in East Asia and the Pacific in WW2
• USA invading Mexico in 19th century
• North Vietnam invading South Vietnam
• etc

Aftermath of an Invasion including positive + negative effects

Maybe this article should have a section like about the above^^. What u guys think? Tutmosis 00:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please make a concrete suggestion for content. Though I am not very knowledgeable on the subject, it seems to be a too broad topic to do much justice to the intentions. I think it would be too hard to generalize on such a diverse subject, but make a try if you want.--Jens Nielsen 21:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Image

I added an image of DDay. If anyone can find a more suitable picture for the article feel free to change it. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 05:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for post 1945 invasions

It feels a bit odd on me that the list of major invasions stops at 1944. This section is for suggestions of more recent invasions. Please argue your arguments for the label 'major'. (See previous section on criteria).

1. The United States invasion of Vietnam, aka the Vietnam War. a) Many hundreds of thousands of US troops participated in the invasion and ensuing acts of war, b) resulting in a probably 2-3 million casualties over nearly two decades. c) In much of the world this conflict figures prominently as a one if not the major since WW2. I'm sure the suggestion will provoke some consternation from descendants of one of the warring parties, but feel free to offer examples of bigger invasions if you know of any. --Jens Nielsen 21:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Tibet "After a decade and still in this age of globalization, the world political circle is still a turning a blind eye. So far,more than 3000 monasteries were destroyed and is still being destroyed. And the whole race as a Tibetan are being erazed by building railway track and bringing Han chinese in Tibet. "Stranger in their own world". More than 70,000 Tibetans still live in exile." Removed this from the Tibet section, which doesnt relate to the invasion itself -- Astrokey44|talk 12:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

My sympathy lies with the victims, but I'm not convinced that this is a good example. Why is it a major invasion? How many invaders were there? I could not tell from the information in the link. Jens Nielsen 14:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Old discussion, didnt see the dates Vladiator 00:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised that Vietnam wasn't listed. I was taught it was an invasion. There doesn't seem to be a raucous debate going on. Shouldn't there maybe be a section about what is thought to be an invasion but isn't?-BiancaOfHell 11:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Being taught it doesn't make it so. The history of the US escalation pretty well shows that it was a response to increases of troops by North Vietnam, not the other way around, and that the initial contingents had been there 10 years before the first "combat troops" were sent. Not an "invasion" according to this article. Which brings up your second point. The section you propose does exist--here, on this page. However to include it in the article would be purely semantics, as I just illustrated.--Buckboard 08:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I doubt it's relevant now, but if it is, Vietnam wasn't a US invasion as the poster suggested, the NVA did, the US was there to protect South Vietnam, like we did in the first Gulf War with Kuwait Vladiator 01:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Invasion?

To me, the "often resulting in the invading power occupying the area, whether briefly or for a long period, and sometimes permanently" part of the definition of invasion adds nothing. First, for permanent occupation, presumably "military victory" should occur, which is wholly separate from invasion. Additionally, there are enough instances of invasions that do not result in the invading power permanently occupying the area that the use of "often" becomes questionable.

Second, what does it mean to "briefly" occupy the area? Does it describe an army marching on the land or a navy entering into foreign waters? Than it is redundant, because an "armed forces" could not otherwise enter a foreign territory.

Third, I think it should be made clear that it is only invasion when one does so without permission. In military exercises and parades, it is common for an armed forces to enter into a territory of another . . . but it's not an invasion.

Fourth, to me, invasion is a triggering event. Taking over an enemy base in the middle of a battle is hardly an invasion . . . although the definition makes it appear so.

I edited the definition accordiingly.Saltyseaweed 18:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that intro for a couple of days. I'm not wild about it, either. I couldn't think of anything better, so I left it alone. Your changes are good.

I also agree with your third point about "permission", and I feel that extends to allies and territories that have signed treaties. That's why I wouldn't consider Soviets sending troops into Hungary an invasion. Even if there are hostilities, it's not an invasion.

Currently, I have "with hostile intention" because permission seemed a bit silly. But maybe you are right, "hostile intention" does not clarify to whom the intent is targetted.Saltyseaweed 20:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

To me, an invasion needs to have at least two prerequisites: 1) the intent to conquer (or at least destroy) the established government of the target country, and 2) sufficient numbers of troops to hold the territory they take (as opposed to guerilla warfare or assassinations). For example, under that definition, Vietnam would not be considered an invasion (which it isn't) because there was no intent to topple South Vietnam's current government; the intent was quite the opposite, actually. (If the military had tried to move in with great numbers of troops and overthrow the North Vietnamese government and take over, that would have been an invasion.)

Hmm. I'm not so sure about your prerequisites. Certainly, many invasions fit them, but I think those are too specific. There have been invasions that do not satisfy them . . . For example, I think Louis XIV invaded Spain, in order to put his relative on Spain's throne. Muhammad invaded the Berber territories, not with the goal of toppling the government but of spreading the religion.

I think generally, if one sends an army into terrotiry held by another without agreement, that's invasion. Being more specific seems to rule out some occurrences that clearly seem like invasionsSaltyseaweed 20:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I admit I don't know much about French history and I'm too lazy to look into it now, but if Louis XIV's intent was to put a puppet on the throne, that's tantamount to overthrowing the established government, so that would count in my book. As far as I know, most of Muhammad's military actions were little battles and skirmishes with a few hundred men. Even his big victory at Mecca was relatively small - maybe 10,000 men. If that's enough men to constitute an invasion, I guess it could be, because his goal was to conquer Mecca's government so Mecca would stop attacking Medina. Sure, it was religiously motivated, but that's still government; to this day, Saudi Arabia's constitution is the Qur'an. And even though it was a smallish force, I guess it was enough to take possession of the city. So I think both of those fit in with my definition. Change the government, hold the land.

I agree with Saltyseaweed. We can't define invasions based on intent. The biggest problem is that intent is fuzzy and difficult to establish because it is nearly always subject to propaganda. All invasions have a professed noble intent. Hitler's invasion of Denmark and the Netherlands was 'intended' to protect them from the imperialist British. Same today. Iraq was invaded out of concerns for weapons of mass destruction, human rights, etc. But few outside United States and nobody in the third world seriously believes it. Professed intent should never be used to define any act of war Jens Nielsen 14:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Your point about invasion being strategic rather than tactical is good, but I don't necessarily think an invasion needs to come at the start of a war. It can just be the result of a new strategy in an old war, when one party gets tired of sneaking around on the border and decides to make a bigger push to end it. So I might change that part, but I do like your additions.

I think without invasion, things probably stay as "skirmish" or "conflict" but not "war." In other words, I think generally act act of invasion is a prerequisite for (but does not always result in) a major military conflict.

I would agree that back in ancient times that would need to be true; in order to bring sufficient troops into battle, somebody needs to invade somebody else. But it's not necessarily true anymore. Germany never got to invade England in WWII, but they sure attacked the crap out of them. They were definitely at war, no doubt about that. With planes, bombs, missiles, and long range artillery, pretty big wars can be fought without anybody really invading. In modern times, the invasion is usually what ends the war, rather than what starts it. The eventual allied invasion of Germany. The invasion of Kosovo following the air war. The various invasions precipatated by terrorism. These days, we usually save the invasion part for last.

You raised a valid point, however. In order to constitute "invasion," I think the armed forces entering must be of a major size; any border skirmish or commando infilteration would not constitute an "invasion." I think the magnitude of the commitment is a factor.Saltyseaweed 20:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, that's my two cents on the subject. I'll wait a while before making changes. Kafziel 19:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to itSaltyseaweed 20:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess part of the problem is that the definition of "invasion" is a bit hazy. Usually, it is associated with land troops, although not always. I think your changes are good, I changed some words around and punctuations. I did remove "large troops" part because it is not well defined what "large troops" mean. For example, Bay of Pigs is defined as invasion, but I think the invasion consisted of less tahn 1500 troops. As whether the number of troops is large or small depends on the circumstances, I think "substantial magnitude" is probably a bit better term.Saltyseaweed 19:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't really say the Bay of Pigs was an invasion; the media spun it that way, and it was catchy so the name stuck. But it was always called a "landing" by the US government, and most of the "invaders" were Cubans themselves (which would make it more of a coup than an invasion). I do think the idea that long-term goals are involved is an important part of the definition. Countries don't invade other countries just to blow up a factory or shoot a dictator. Smaller goals like that could be accomplished with much smaller teams, even thousands of years ago. Invasions have long-term goals of taking power and holding it (even at the Bay of Pigs the goal was to take over Cuba, not just to take Castro out).

On another note, I just want to say that it's really great to see this article being improved by so many great editors. I think we're doing excellent work here. Kafziel 21:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the introduction and definition of the term is weak, ambiguous and in many respects wrong. Invasions, for example, are not necessarily military, and as an example of this I would cite the Anglo-Saxon takeover of Britain in the wake of the exodus of the occupying Roman powers. There was certainly a military component to this population migration, however the invasion itself was primarily effected by successfully out-breeding and out-performing the then indigenous population. Was it an invasion? Certainly it fulfills all the other requisite criteria for invasion, and it was only at the point at which the indigenous population were pegged back to the point of resistance that the situation became preponderantly militaristic in tone. This is just one example of demographic invasion, and there are many more, and other types of invasion which do not require militaristic action. Moreover the article introduction fails to recognise that under certain circumstances an invasion may not be resisted or may even be welcomed by the population.Sjc 05:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please look above at 'Types of Invasion' for some of my concerns. However, the definition of Invasion is taking and holding ground. To illustrate this point, I quote from a Primary Source, 'The Art of War in the Western World' ISBN# 0-7607-0734-0, by Archer Jones. I found this cite by going into the index and looking up 'Raid, defined and distinguished'.

"Warfare in the ancient world made much use of raids, which were temporary intrusions into a hostile country, as well as invasions, which were temporary or permanent occupations of the territory invaded. Though a form of military action, raids often had objectives that were not solely military."

"One may distinguish between raids and a persisting strategy of invasion. Whereas the former used a temporary presence in hostile territory, a persisting offensive strategy envisioned a longer, even permanent, occupation of the territory of the adversary or his allies."

From the comments above "I would agree that back in ancient times that would need to be true; in order to bring sufficient troops into battle, somebody needs to invade somebody else. But it's not necessarily true anymore." This is simply not true - especially in Ancient times. The ancient Greeks often used a raiding strategy against their neighbors, rarely seeking to overthrow the other city state involved - but using a large number of hoplite troops. As In my comments above in 'Types of Invasion', Ethoipia vs. Somalia currently is almost identical in tone and application to this sort of limited conflict. Ethoipia has never stated it wants to run Somalia, or occupy it over a long time period. They want to get rid of the Islamic Courts rule over the land, so they raided into the area, kicked them out, and are now planning to withdraw.

As this is becoming a featured article, this needs to be sorted out quickly. I do not understand the rules for me editing this article at such a late stage, after peer review. Could someone please respond to my concerns, and inform me of the rules (I'm an infrequent editor, and not up to speed on such things) on my talk page? Dobbs 17:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The definition of a (military) invasion: Thats a rather interesting one. A sufficiently forcefull incursion to satisfy strategic objectives? A territorial attack that gains more then a foothold? The word temporarily isn't very attractive in the definition, because the effect of invasions hardly ever goes unnoticed. All invasions we speak of achieve something, if they don't they are called attacks or landings eg.(landing at dieppe, and perhaps teheran was an attempt to topple iran in a castro like fashion;).)Anyhow i mention the whole point in the last comments: name of the article. I think it is, that even if D-day led to occupation of germany explicitly, the term invasion is flawed. Those were landings. And in giving their populace a false sense of grandeur, the actual conquering and occupation of a whole territory being something preferable, over wading to land under severe fire, the neologist synonim 'invasion' for 'major amphibious operation' confused things. Actually it suggest the US prepared their populace for anti-sovjet occupation of europe. This can be mere suggestion, it may have been Stalin that plotted this by insisting on the term invasion, but i think he called it the second front.212.187.41.61 12:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You are overthinking the definition and consciously or unconsciously putting a political spin on it. An invasion is a massive movement of military forces by a country (or alliance of countries) into an area not under its control for the purpose of achieving political or military objectives. It doesn't have to be strategic, in and of itself, though the goals likely are. It doesn't have to be violent, or opposed, thopugh it often is. It only has to be military and from an area under control to one not controlled. This business of "landings" versus "invasion" is semantics. The invasion of Normandy was an invasion. The invasions of Tarawa, Kwajalein, Saipan, Peleliu, Leyte, Luzon, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima were invasions.--Buckboard 09:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

list of invasions

I just did a britannica search and there are a bunch of invasions. I'm not a history buff, so I'm not sure which are important enough to list. A similar search for naval invasion yields some results as well. Hope this helps. P.S. What about adding Bay of Pigs Invasion? Gflores ^Talk 19:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The age old spelling question

For this article, are we being British or American? The latest copyedit leaves a mix of both. I have no problem with being British here; the Brits have invaded (and been invaded by) a lot more places than the US. On the other hand, it looks like the bulk of the article thus far is written in American English. Not that it's hard to fix that. I'm really neutral on this subject, so if there is anyone out there who is really nationalistic about spelling, speak up. Kafziel 12:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point but they have only been around for a little while, give them a few more years and they will get into the swing of it /sigh. However I think we should be consistent throughout, and either adopt one or other forms of spelling, and not have both. I think there is something to this effect in the style guides and it is something really we should try to adhere to. Sjc 11:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Linked dates

In the case of the historical examples section (or any list of historical events) I think linked dates are good because it allows readers to quickly put them into context with other events. It also serves as an internal cite, in a way, because readers can confirm that those events did, indeed, happen during that year and in certain cases see the exact date. I have re-inserted the links for the dates for those reasons. Kafziel 16:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

land invasion

states that limited terrority is involved. On the contrary, land invasions can and have involved extensive territory. Consider the Nazi invasion of Russia, the Hun invasion of Russia and Eastern Europe, the Mongol invasions of Europe and Asia, Alexander the Great's invasion of Persia.

I agree. There's no reason to think the territory gained is small. Also, "small" compared to what? Small compared to the land mass of Asia? Small compared to my backyard? There doesn't seem to be a basis for it. I'm going to change that. Kafziel 21:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the statement that intelligence is less necessary; I'm not sure where that came from, but as any grunt can tell you, it is no less necessary to have intel on enemy troop movements when you're in a hummer than it is when you're on an aircraft carrier. It's probably even more important, because the average infantryman doesn't have radar. :) Kafziel 21:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

air invasion

Described herein in theory, but where is the practice? I could not find any obvious examples in the List of Invasions. Are there any in fact? or are moving troops by air just a tactic in a land/sea invasion? Hmains 01:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Operation Market Garden in WWII is probably the best example to date; the allies landed something like 35,000 men with parachutes, planes, and gliders. I think it was the biggest airborne op in history, but I still don't think anybody considers it an "invasion". I could be wrong about that. But those troop numbers are nowhere near what you see with land and sea; there just aren't enough planes to carry a million people to a certain spot all at once. So I guess it's a matter of opinion of whether or not it was its own invasion; by comparision, Operations Chicago, Detroit, and Tonga were pretty big too, but they are still just considered a part of the overall Operation Overlord (Normandy Invasion), not their own thing. So basically, I'd agree with you; at this point in time, at least, air invasion hasn't really come into its own. But that's not to say it never will. When it does, people can look it up on Wikipedia to see what the hell CNN is talking about.

Besides... I'm sure if you lived in a little Dutch village and 30,000 paratroopers landed in your town, it would feel like an honest to God invasion. :) Kafziel 05:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd imagine the Germans considered Market Garden an invasion, and it fits the strict definition of an invasion, certainly. I would not consider it a part of moving troops by sea or land, because you're not doing that--you're moving them by air.

And I'm pretty sure the article mentions that it is possible to use a combination of these methods...one could argue that Operation Overlord, for example, or the entry of coalition soldiers into Kuwait during the first Gulf War became a land invasion the moment they moved beyond Normandy and Kuwait city, respectively. Certainly, I don't think anyone would call the movement of Allied troops into Paris during the second World War or of coalition troops into internationally recognized Iraqi territory proper the continuance of a sea invasion, despite having started as such. The aerial deployment of forces into area occupied by another entity is an invasion, whether it's being done for the first time or to take the territory back, as a primary means of troop movement or in conjunction with other methods. The Artak 18:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess it depends on which "strict definition" you use; Webster's defines invasion as an "incursion of an army for conquest or plunder." Market Garden's objective was not to conquer the Netherlands or to plunder them; it was just to hold some bridges temporarily so that the real invasion force could advance. Plus... it failed, even with all those men and supplies. Which is not a good indicator that the age of the air invasion has arrived. Air raids? Yes. Air recon? Sure. Air invasion? Not so much.

As I said, I definitely think the category should stay in the article, because it exists in military theory. I don't think it's all that important that there isn't a good historical example of it yet. The historical examples are in a different section anyway. Kafziel 21:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggest inclusion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Eben-Emael as air invasion example, though admittedly was operationally a shock force before the ground invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.67.6.15 (talk) 23:16, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Types of Invasions

The above points seem to me to be pointless. More importantly, I think the entire idea of "types of invasion" in this context is flawed. "Land" or "Air" refer to specific tactics one uses. Market Garden was the air landing tactic used in support of the invasion of Europe. DDay was the sea landing tactic used in the invasion of Europe. Neither were "invasions", both were tactics used. An Invasion is an Invasion, how you do it might be left to either a seperate section discussing tactics one can employ to conduct such an endeavor, or a seperate article. Dobbs 13:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

They already are in separate sections. Not sure what you mean by that. Also, most invasions (including the examples you list) are strategic, not tactical.

Those discussions above are more than a year old; since then, the article has gone through Peer Review, Featured Article candidacy, and was featured on the main page. It's been pretty well established that the article about invasions is the proper place to discuss different types of invasions. Kafziel ^Talk 13:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured article?

Okay, so the COTW has been over for some time now, and I was thinking about nominating this to become a featured article. It's a solid article, it's stable (no edit wars, minimal controversy), it has good photos and formatting, and it covers the subject matter well. The way I see it, it can't hurt to try because at least we can get feedback. Actually, the biggest reason for opposition I predict will be that we don't have any external references in the article. That's really just because all of the sources of the article come from other wikipedia articles. While that doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me, and external sources are not explicitly required by the guidelines, some voters might want to see some external cites to help the article meet the accuracy/verifiability requirement. So I just wanted to see if anyone was interested in helping me add some external supporting documentation before I nominate this as a feature. Kafziel 02:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

First things first. We need to have a peer review. You can set that up if you like. I know that at the present time this article wouldn't be featured because it has no references, so someone will need to do that. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 02:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly. I've added some of my references and hopefully some of the other contributors can add some as well. In the meantime, I guess I'll submit it to peer review so we can get some feedback on anything else that needs improvement. Kafziel 16:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

So... we're over a week into the peer review and we've had some good suggestions, but none within the last few days. I'm not sure if that silence is good or bad, but I think this is ready to be submitted as a featured article candidate so we can either get more feedback or get it promoted. Kafziel 16:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

References

• Just want to let everyone that I put notes into the page. I tried to follow the same way they were done on WW2 but if you know that it's wrong be bold and fix it for me. Oh and if it is wrong let me know on my talk so I can do it right next time. RENTA^{FOR LET?} 02:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Way to go, everyone. It's good to know the system works.--Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 20:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Persia

in the new section on Persia, there is the following link:

Persia,

when I click on this, I go to first page of the article on Persia. Was this the intent or something else? If something else, I don't know how to fix it. Thanks Hmains 20:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like somebody, in the ever troublesome pursuit of political correctness, changed the "BC"s in the link to "BCE"s, thereby making the link not work properly. I've changed it back and it works now. Thanks! Kafziel 20:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, good. I would like to see BCE and CE used: 'political correctness'--from every political point of view--is nice if it results in not unnecessarily offending people--that is its point. We can look around the world and see how offended people can get and how violent they can become as a result. But I am not willing to confront those who fell challenged by the use of anything other than BC and AD, even when their primary argument is clearly defending a "Christian" POV. Thanks Hmains 20:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinks, etc.

Am I the only who think the wikilinks in the intro are excessive? War? Who's going to get to this page and not know what a war is? Punishment? Radio? Transportation? They seem pointless. I know I'm a little bit deletionist when it comes to internal links, but all that blue in the intro makes it seem cluttered to me. I could see putting war, oppression, rebellion, etc. in the "see also" section, but I don't know why they need to be linked in the intro.

I also don't see why "genocide" should be replaced by "democide"; the examples aren't meant to cover every possibility, and genocide is certainly well-established and much more commonly used. It seems needlessly esoteric to use the latter. Kafziel 20:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but "invasion" itself is a general topic; it is important to assert the context in which an invasion occurs, even if it is obvious. Perhaps I'm just taxonomical, but that's how I usually organise articles. The statement that "who is not going to know what A is?" may apply to most people, but then you have people for whom English isn't their first language, and they want to know the context of which the vocabulary is defined. The idea here is to encompass the "total sum of human knowledge", and the concept is, the most ignorant person could come on here and enlighten him or herself, so it's really a "catch the sediment" kind of thing. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's tough to find a balance sometimes, but words like "punishment" and "radio" are plain English words and the manual of style says they shouldn't be linked. "Civil war" and "coup d'etat" are perhaps less obvious to some, but they are only named as examples of what an invasion is not; those terms are only included because they are unrelated to the topic. They do not lead to information that will build comprehension of this article.

As a linguist, I understand that it can be tough for people to navigate foreign-language pages when they don't have full comprehension, but other languages have their own Wikipedias. I don't ask them to make things easier for me on "ويكيبيديا". It really comes down to the fact that Wikipeida is not a foreign language tutoring service, and we shouldn't have to sacrifice quality for accessibility. Kafziel 23:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a good article. Time to leave it. Given all the linking (excessive maybe, but nice in many ways--links are what makes new/unexpected knowledge/insight happen) that is everywhere in wikipedia, any attempt to delete links will be defeated in detail by all the other editors who will notice that links are missing and add them back in--throughout the years that the article will exist. Thanks Hmains 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't bother anyone else, it's okay with me. Kafziel 16:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

5 June 2006

The intended italic sentences are currently (5 June) in the article:

In modern times, the notion of constructing large-scale static defenses to combat land based threats is quickly becoming obsolete. The use of precision air campaigns and large-scale mechanization have made lighter, more mobile defenses desirable to military planners. Nations defending against modern invasions normally use large population centers such as cities or towns as defensive points.

• What is modern times? If this means post 1940 then it should say so. But as world war II progressed the defensive lines became increasingly sophisticated. What would one call the Soviet defence of the Kursk salient (six? lines of fortifications). What about the German defence of the Seelow Heights with 3 lines of fortifications which came close to stopping the main Soviet thrust?
• What about the Swiss? In their plans they would like to hold the cities, but expect to fight the war in the mountains. I've seem Swiss mountain defences which it would take nothing short of nukes to take out and even then it would not be easy. To use one desert war to build a hypothesis seems to me a bit thin and a POV argument.--Philip Baird Shearer

Modern times means modern times. I don't think we need to worry about anyone in the 1940s reading this. What about the Swiss? Who says they're on the cutting edge of warfare? The paragraph doesn't say no static defenses exist, just that they are less effective now that they used to be. Kafziel 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Large static air defense systems that combine antiaircraft guns with missile launchers are still the best way to defend against air attacks.

If this was true why do the USA rely predominantly on aircraft for air defence?--Philip Baird Shearer

Because it is more acceptable to Americans to have military airstrips than it is to have missile batteries in public places. If it came to that, though, yes - SAM batteries are much more accurate and reliable than fighter planes in terms of interdiction. Besides, I don't think anyone is arguing that the United States has the most well-defended borders in the world. ;) Kafziel 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Untrue - the best air interdiction strategy is to have air supremacy. In addition, the statement that SAM batteries being much more accurate and reliable than fighter planes is unsubstaintated. Both of these statements are your opinion, and there are several contrary opinions about this that I can source. It should be stated as such. Or at least reworded somewhere along the lines of 'If the defender lacks air dominance or supremacy, antiaircraft guns with missile launchers are considered by many as the best way to defend against air attacks.' Dobbs 17:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Island nations, such as the United Kingdom or Japan, and continental states with extensive coasts, such as the United States, have utilized a naval presence to forestall an invasion of their country, rather than fortifying their border areas.

What are the coastal defences of all ages and types doing in the UK if this is true? See Dover Castle and the martello towers as examples. --Philip Baird Shearer

That doesn't say they don't have any coastal defenses. It says they concentrate on a strong navy. And they do. Kafziel 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In modern warfare, invasion by land often takes place after, or sometimes during, attacks on the target by other means. Air strikes and cruise missiles launched from ships at sea are a common method of "softening" the target.

Again what is "modern warfare"?. Apart from wars involving the USA who else has "used missiles launched from ships at sea" as a common method of softening up targets.--Philip Baird Shearer

As unmanned, long-range combat evolves, the instances of basic overland invasion become fewer; often the conventional fighting is effectively over before the infantry arrives in the role of peacekeepers

That is so out of the box I don't know where to start, it must have been written by an air force pilot. Also the definition of Fourth generation warfare (4GW) put out by William S. Lind has changed so much over the last 20 years that one would have to state which version of 4GW one means! (see these two online articles 1989 and 2004) --Philip Baird Shearer

I agree. Kafziel 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

However, the large amount of specialized equipment, such as amphibious vehicles and the difficulty of establishing defenses—usually with a resulting high casualty count—in exchange for a relatively small gain, are often used as arguments against such an invasion method.

A "high casualty count" really? British Forces arriving in Sierra Leone Operation Palliser, or the Americans Marines arriving in Somalia were filmed by new crews on the beach as they arrived on the beach (with little to no shots fired), as part of Operation Restore Hope -- but perhaps these two are not enough of an invasion. So here are some more: [[Falklands War#Landing at San Carlos Water], Suez Crisis#Invasion, Korean War Battle of Inchon, World War II Operation Weserübung, Operation Torch, Operation Dragoon, I could go on. --Philip Baird Shearer

Naming a few exceptions doesn't mean it isn't true. Amphibious assaults on fortified positions certainly do have a higher casualty rate. The future of warfare does not hinge on operations in Somalia and Sierra Leone, I assure you. Kafziel 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

but asymmetric warfare on the part of these groups can be continued indefinitely

Not according to British plans during World War II for stay behind forces in the case of a German invasion of Britain, their life expectancy was expected to be measured in day not weeks. (See Auxiliary Units) --Philip Baird Shearer

You're talking about a hypothetical situation. The article provides real-life examples of indefinite resistance fighting. Kafziel 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The concept of fourth generation warfare is quite new, so neither side can claim to know for certain which strategies will ultimately solve the problem.

These ideas are not new they were around in the decade after World War II, See for example Charles Foley ideas "Strategic Assault Corps" published 1954 (See also Talk:Asymmetric warfare#Additions?), Indeed the British SOE and to a lesser extent the American OSS were putting ideas like this into practice during World War II. There have also been many others like Michael Collins who created "Bloody Mayhem".--Philip Baird Shearer

You're splitting hairs a bit there; whether or not we consider "new" to include the 1950s (which, in the scope of the history of warfare, I do) doesn't matter; the fact is, resistance fighting that began in that era (and earlier) is still going on, without any definitive solution. Kafziel 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

All in all I think the section "Applications in fourth generation warfare" should be removed from this article because it has little to do with Invasion and more to do with occupation. It does not even begin to look at strategies like Mahatma Gandhi's Satyagrahafor which it would probably have little to say on it.--Philip Baird Shearer

I agree. Kafziel 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Many records for invasions were set during World War II, at the peak of second and third generation warfare.

The terms "second and third generation warfare" is a specific POV and should be removed.

What, specifically, is POV about them? Kafziel 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The bloodiest invasion in history was the allies' attempted invasion of Japan.

I'm not even going to wait for a response it is just wrong and I am going to remove it. --Philip Baird Shearer

Do you have a better source? Kafziel 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Another record was set in more recent years: beginning on March 20 and ending on April 15

No there have been a lot faster invasions: Grenada springs to mind (Operation Urgent Fury), but I bet I can find several more which were very fast... How about Denmark (Operation Weserübung) and Luxembourg in 1940 to name but two more which spring to mind. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, Grenada took a little over a month and a half from start to finish. Kafziel 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental questions

Is an invasion really only between armed forces (which are described in their article as working for a state]] invading another geopolitical bodies? Are we saying that any tribes that took one another's lands, for example, were not committing invasions because there were not defined geopolitical nations and borders? Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"Fastest invasion in history"

Another record was set in more recent years: beginning on March 20 and ending on April 15, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the fastest invasion in history.

The citation for this is a one-sentence intro to a Fox News story, with no details given. It's also pretty impressively silly. Even if we just restrict this to invasions of whole countries (there's no shortage of quick invasions of islands!), there's plenty of counterexamples:

• Battle of the Netherlands, 1940 - attack on 10th May, occupation began on the 17th
• Operation Weserübung, 1940 - attack on 9th April, occupation of Denmark begun that day.
• Invasion of Yugoslavia, 1941 - attack on 6th April, occupation begun 17th April
• Battle of Greece, 1941 - attack on 6th April, completely occupied 30th April

The last one is about the same length as the Iraqi invasion, but the others are clearly quicker. Shimgray | talk | 23:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm removing it. Kafziel 03:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

United States invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq

I understand that these invasions may be important today but in the long run these invasions are not special. If Vietnam, the Russian invasion of Afganistan, or even the German blitzkriegs arn't listed here (including Barbarossa, the Largest invasion in history) why should these invasions be listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LCpl (talk • contribs)

I agree. They were not included in the original version of the article (as agreed in another discussion above), and I will remove them. Kafziel 14:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fourth Generation Warfare

This term is a historical and cultural anomaly (its article notes it is solely a US term). Why is it being used? Additionly, the concept is subject to change. As such, it would be more accurate to re-title the article Applications regarding non-state combatants and similarily change other references to 4GW (To presever the link an aside would be made along the lines of, 'this phenomena has been described as Fourth generation warfare by William S. Lind'.) WRT the combatants non-state status: I acknowledge that sometimes these combatants are sponsored/owned by the/a state; however, the definition hinges on a lack of state control, which is evident in all entities under discussion in this section.

Despite general consensus on this page that the 2003 Invasion of Iraq is not notable enough to be included, it provides a well known contempory case study of the debate with which this section is concerned. Including a passage using this conflict as an example of the two positions woulc be helpful.

Also, the statement 'the concept of fourth generation warfare is quite new' is erroneous. The debate regarding how to deal with small decentralised combatants who use asymetric tactics can be seen in how the Romans dealt with the German tribes: the concept is not new, this particular expression of it is.

It is my intention to wait two weeks and to implement these changes, unless there is significant opposition. Inane Imp 11:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Muslim conquests section...

This is hugely erroneous: "Lasting slighly more than a century, these conquests brought much of the ancient world under the banner of Islam and represent the zenith of Muslim political power."

Seriously, Muslim presence in al-Andalus(Spain) 711-1492. Likewise Muslims are still holding the lands in the Arab World, Iran, Asia minor...etc. Seriously I can't believe such a huge error couldn't be spotted earlier. 213.42.2.21

An occupation isn't the same as an invasion. The invasions themselves did not take 700 years. Kafziel ^Talk 07:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Christian Colonialism and Imperialism

This section is POV and should be removed, It aslo has little to do with the artical because it's not really about a military invasion. LCpl 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm are you kidding? That was a massive conquest movement that spanned the entire globe, spread christianity and created the basis for the global western centered society. It was very similar to the Muslim conquests except that it had a lot more actors and was much larger in scope and sustained duration and eclipsed anything in histoy before it. Please review the definition of Invasion as per the article as well to see why it qualifies. We can identify and fix "NPOV" concerns if that is your primary objective but I think it reads fairly balanced.--Tigeroo 09:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it was not an important event in world history,but it's not about a specific invasion. Good examples of the European Christians conquering other area's are already mentioned in this artical namely The Crusades and the Conquest of the Aztec Empire. If you want to more about a specific invasion go right on ahead.LCpl 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

For my money POV has nothing to do with it. You said it yourself--it was a "movement", not an "invasion" (although it may have involved one or more invasions to spread the movement). Same with the Moslem conquests, and the Mongols. These are all on a larger conceptual scale than an invasion, just as an invasion is a larger concept than a raid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.238.92.62 (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Problems with the Imperialism paragraph at the end

This section contains a direct contradiction:

"During the 16th and 17th centuries, Britain, France and Holland established their own overseas empires ...

"Towards the 17th and 18th century the Germans and the French also joined in...."

Was this second refference to the French meant to be Italy perhaps, some other nation? France was definately one of the first, along with Britian, its colonies were well established when the Germans came along. I am removing refference to the French in the second part, but there is probably another country along with Germany that was intended to be there.

I am also removing the last paragraph of this section. The pros and cons and results of Imperialism are not relevant to this article. This is about invasion, so I'm taking the superflous part out; if readers want info, they can follow the link. Harley peters 03:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Article name?

Has the article name been discussed before? I was wondering if military invasion would be a more precise title? Compare with alien invasion and home invasion and invasion of privacy. Similarly, Category:Invasions could be Category:Military invasions? I say this because one-word titles are prone to being vague, and the word invasion does have more than one connotation. I see the wiktionary link is there in the 'see also' section, but it is not until you reach the wiktionary entry for invade that more definitions start to appear:

• invader: "One who invades; an assailant; an encroacher; an intruder."
• invade:
  • (1) to move into "Under some circumstances police are allowed to invade a person's privacy."
  • (2) to enter by force in order to conquer "Argentinian troops invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982."
  • (3) to infest or overrun "The picnic was invaded by ants."
• invasive:
  • (1) that invades a foreign country using military force
  • (2) (of a plant or animal) that invades a habitat to the detriment of native species
  • (3) (medicine) (of a carcinoma etc) that invades healthy tissue; (of a procedure) in which part of the body is entered
  • (4) intruding on one's privacy, or trespassing

When I see the word invasion on its own, I don't immediately think of the military sort, but I think to myself "what sort of invasion is it?". I realise that the hatnote at the top of this article directs people to invasion (disambiguation), but my feeling is that invasion should redirect to invasion (disambiguation) and the content currently here could be moved to military invasion. The downside is that there are 581 links pointing at invasion, which would have to be changed if the content here was moved and the redirect changed to point at invasion (disambiguation). Possible, because military history people will be used to linking to invasion, the content here could be moved to military invasion, and the invasion redirect left pointing at military invasion.

Certainly, having military invasion pointing at invasion is not that logical. What do people here think? Carcharoth 10:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I too came here from seeing the featured article and thinking the article is poorly named. Should be military invasion. See dictionary.com. Paul Beardsell 12:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This has all been discussed before; it's the reason Invasion (disambiguation) was created and is linked to at the top of this article. The vast majority of articles referencing simply an "invasion" are referring to the military type. "Military invasion" is a made-up construct, and that's against naming conventions. It's not the "military invasion of Normandy" or the "military invasion of Iraq". Obviously when we talk about the invasion of Iraq we're not talking about kudzu or burglary. Any other kind of invasion is named after the military action. Kafziel ^Talk 15:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to insist that this has been discussed before, could you please be kind enough to link to the previous discussion? I did look through the talk page and could only find a discussion of the definition of invasion.

If you look at the list of Wikipedia articles and redirects starting with the word 'military', there are examples of other articles in a similar position: Military campaign, Military deployment, Military operation. Why is Military invasion different from these? I suppose I just dislike single-word articles, especially when the article is really about the history of invasions, not about the word invasion. Articles like book, house, tree are objects. Invasion is an action, like conquest, discussion, and suchlike. I'm not going to make a big fuss, so please don't get defensive. I'm just making a suggestion. Carcharoth 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not being defensive. You asked if this had been discussed before, and I was just saying that it has. It wasn't much of a discussion but I assume that's just because there wasn't much need. It's pretty clearly the most common usage and there's a disambiguation page for the rest. But of course you are welcome to start a move request. I would oppose it for the reasons I gave in my first reply, but believe me, I'm far from trying to own this article. It's not even on my watchlist. I was only around yesterday because I got messages congratulating me on the article being on the front page. Kafziel ^Talk 13:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Tricky discussion. I was also inclined initially to think that this article (which I love) should be renamed as Military Invasion. However, the acception of invasion discussed in this article is certainly one of at least three possible (check dictionaries). What about a middle way solution: renaming Invasion (disambiguation) as Invasion, and renaming Invasion as Invasion (military). Wouldn't that be reasonable? Miguel Andrade 19:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more in support of that than the previous suggestion. I'm not wild about the term "military" in this context—it's too vague (what constitutes a military is subject to change throughout history) and yet too specific at the same time (what about paramilitaries, mercenaries, militias etc);but I can live with it. Turning "Invasion" into a disambiguation page rather than a redirect page will require actually fixing the links on all the pages that currently link here (about 600, I believe). Not it! :) Kafziel ^Talk 19:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

We have two issues. (1) Is "military" in Invasion (military) accurate to describe this article? The article itself says that an invasion is a military action, so it could be OK. But I can imagine alternatives, like Invasion (territorial) (understanding a territory as something like a country) as oppossed to invasion of privacy, or to a viral invasion. (2) Many articles link to this one and the links will have to be changed. I am afraid someone will have to change those links (and will get lots of edits). This happens all the time. In the meantime those links will go to the main Invasion page, which would not be too bad.Miguel Andrade 22:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Invasion (military) is the best option we're going to come up with. But causing articles to link to disambiguation pages is a pretty big no-no. If and when this article gets moved, the link fixes will need to be made immediately. (That's why I said "not it!", although I was only kidding - I'd be happy to help with it.) Kafziel ^Talk 01:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will help and I have asked Carcharoth and Paul Beardsell to help once we change the name of the articles. If you can think of other people that could help then we can start requesting the changes, etc, etc. I hope all references to this article as a featured article can be also changed. Miguel Andrade 15:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's not put the cart before the horse. A whole lot of people have worked on this article, and not everyone may agree that it needs to be moved. Just start a move request and we'll see how that goes. We can worry about fixing the links if and when we get consensus for a move. Kafziel ^Talk 15:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment unrelated to the above

I am sorry to say but, i thought i will check through this article. To see if i can mostly agree. On general terms one can, although one might wonder if there is a need for the term very much outside post-blockprinting media-analysis. (terms like naval operations, violation of souvereignity, are often more precise). Anyway the article must be thoroughly POV because the first block of text is:" an invasion can be used to end a war...." now that, may coincedentually actually have happened, a few times, but it is not an obvious use or direct effect of any invasion. Ofcourse its propagandatory charming to pose D-Day(since that is the unnamed POV we are talking about here probably) as the end of a war, or the second great war. But technically anzio has been invaded , sicilia and the south of france, in a similar manner and with the exact same purpose of 'winning' a war. I suggest that will be the replacement for 'ending' a war here. Also i think ending a war is a term that should be preserved to settling peace, not to any kind of ongoing military operations. Winning a war, obviously is a true target of almost any invasion. Although prolonging a war has been another reason, but yeah, who wants to know that...(I do)212.187.41.61 11:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

examples of historically significant invasions

ummmm where is the allied invasion of normandy? I cant think of a more significant one.... 172.201.19.199 13:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Right here:

In the largest amphibious invasion in history, 156,215 Allied troops landed at Normandy to retake France from the occupying German forces. Though it was costly in terms of men and materials, the invasion advanced the Western Front and forced Germany to redirect its forces from the Russian and Italian fronts. In hindsight, the operation is also credited with defining the Western boundary of Soviet communism; had the Allies not advanced, it is conceivable that the Soviet Union would have controlled more of Europe than it eventually did.

Kafziel ^Talk 16:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism (word "Invasion" replaced by "Paris Hilton")

Someone has changed the first paragraph to -

An Paris Hilton is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective...

I tried to edit the page to fix this, but when I looked in the editor it still read "An invasion is..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.101.104 (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

That was most likely due to that it was fixed between you loaded this article and when you clicked "edit". Vandalism of much frequented articles is fixed quickly most of the times. Jeltz talk 21:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move Patstuart^talk|edits 09:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Invasion → Invasion (military) — This article refers to a military type of invasion. There is already a disambiguation page that could get current links to Invasion using a redirect. If this goes ahead there is some 600 links to fix, so be ready to help. Miguel Andrade 04:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Either to this name, or to military invasion. My reasoning is explained above, but my general reasoning is that one-word article titles need to be absolutely unambiguous. For example: campaign, survey, assessment are similar one-word titles that have a range of meanings in the English language. In my opinion, invasion on its own can mean too many things, so clarification is needed. I would support invasion being a permanent redirect to this article if it gets moved, providing people periodically disambiguate the other uses of invasion that are linked here. Otherwise, I am prepared to help out with fixing the around 600 links, and to help with periodic dabbing of invasion as a dab page instead. Carcharoth 11:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. The military meaning is overplayed. Paul Beardsell 22:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. The military meaning of the term is overwhelmingly the most commonly used one, and is thus suitable for primary-meaning disambiguation. Kirill Lokshin 16:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
2. I agree with Kirill Lokshin Philip Baird Shearer 17:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Although I generally support disambiguation, this seems a little unnecessary. Kirill is correct to point out that this is far and away the most common usage of the term, and therefore does not need a parenthetical. Carom 18:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Per my previous comments, here and here. I wanted to make sure I wasn't violating WP:OWN by being the lone crusader for this, but since it's evident I'm not the only one who feels this way, I don't think it's inappropriate for me to speak up. Kafziel ^Talk 18:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Per previous comments.--SeizureDog 11:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Per comments: RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 01:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Other meanings are, in aggregate, less common and are derivatives of this one. Myriad one word titles are ambiguous, notably proper names but also basic words like book, doll, or man. —  AjaxSmack  10:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead paragraph

I was looking at the lead paragraph again, and I wonder if the following might clear up some of the confusion caused to some people by the single-word title?

• Original - "An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory, or altering the established government. An invasion can be the cause of a war, it can be used as a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself."
• Proposed change - "The primary meaning of the term invasion refers to a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory, or altering the established government. Such an invasion can be the cause of a war, it can be used as a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself."

Or maybe change the disambiguation hatnote to say: "This article is about military invasions. For other uses of the term, see Invasion (disambiguation)." Carcharoth 12:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Who's confused? "Military" is the fifth word in the first sentence, and there's an infobox with "war" at the top and pictures of tanks and soldiers right at the top. It's made extremely clear right off the bat. I wouldn't have any problem with changing the dablink if you want, but I don't see how it's any improvement on what's already there. Kafziel ^Talk 13:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Step back a moment, and consider the proposal on its own merits. Read the paragraph I proposed. What is actually wrong with it? Carcharoth 15:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the dablink: it currently causes momentary confusion. Even if only momentary, such confusion interrupts the flow of reading an article. That is what polishing the final wording of an article is all about. People read the title (Invasion), then they read the dablink (For other uses, see...), which tells them there are other meanings of the term, then they read the first sentence, which quite clearly, and unequivocally states "An invasion is..." - no two ways about it, an invasion just is what this article says it is. Hang on, the reader goes, the bit I just read said there were other meanings of the word, why is the article now saying unequivocally that an invasion is this, and not anything else? In other words, there is a disconnect between the title, dablink and first sentence. What I am proposing is to ease the reader into the article in a smoother fashion.

Really though, should it really be necessary to argue at length over such minor changes? I've done this before - seen a featured article, spotted a few minor changes, sometimes made them, sometimes get reverted. Most times, when discussing the changes on the talk page, the editors who brought it to featured status get defensive about minor changes to wording, even if clear arguments are provided to justify the changes. Is it not possible that if I had introduced this phrasing earlier in the history of the article, it would have been accepted without a murmur? Carcharoth 15:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the second time you've accused me of being defensive. This has nothing to do with my being the one who got the article to FA status; that was a very long time ago, and hundreds of changes have been made since then without a peep from me. The fact that I was once a major contributer to this article does not mean my opinion is somehow invalidated. That's a pretty backward stance to take, and I'd appreciate it if you could proceed without the ad hominem arguments.

The changes you propose are redundant. Obviously "the primary meaning of the term 'invasion'" is the military one; that's why it's located at this title. That does nothing to clarify anything or improve the language (or style) of the introduction. In your proposal you said, "Or maybe change the disambiguation hatnote," which I had no problem with at all. I agreed to your second option, and that still wasn't good enough. You say I'm being defensive. You say I need to "step back". Why can't it simply be that I disagree with your notion of some imaginary confusion? There have been no complaints or questions from anyone who has been confused by this. The move proposal was turned down because many editors (not just me) can see that this is obviously the most common usage and the proper location for the article, and there's nothing especially confusing about it. Kafziel ^Talk 15:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for implying you were being defensive. I was generalising from behaviour I see at other featured articles. For what it is worth, this thread was prompted by the same thoughts that prompted the move discussion, but is not a response to it. Please don't try and imply that rejecting the move is also a rejection of this proposal. I will try and find a suitable WP:HATNOTE template to use. Carcharoth 16:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. The first thing the reader reads now is "Invasion. This article is about military invasions..." followed by the dab hatnote (or dablink) and the rest of the article as before. Hope that is OK, and satisfies everyone. Carcharoth 16:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that normally having the dablink repeat the title is redundant, but here the dablink expands and clarifies the title. Those who want a military invasion article ignore it, those who are not sure what the article is about, are provided with the answer straightaway (2-3 words sooner and in less unequivocal a fashion), and those who want a different invasion know to go straight to the dab page, instead of bothering to read the article. Sorry to have dragged that all out. I'd forgotten there were so many different flavours of hatnote templates, and this one is perfect. Carcharoth 16:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I assumed that was the one you meant when you first proposed the change. As I said, that's fine with me. Kafziel ^Talk 16:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant

Currently the article says: "Complete pacification of an occupied country can be difficult, and usually impossible, but popular support is vital to the success of any invasion". I think that this needs qualifying because it is true only under current International humanitarian law. Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. -- "They make a desert and call it peace" Calgacus by Tacitus. Also (to take one example of many), the Invasion of Germany and the Debellatio was successful without the initial support of the occupied population and without the introduction of the Morgenthau Plan. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a Military invasion - its an Offensive

Please read below from the project talk.
Can you source the definition of an invasion? Its not referenced in the article. Most invasions are in fact Offensives, and the occupations are called 'garrisoning' by militaries, though it better represents the view of the people who are opposing the garrisoning of course. I refer to the etymology of the word which is: 1439, from M.Fr. French: invasion (12c.), from L.L. invasionem (nom. invasio) "an attack, invasion," from L. invasus, pp. of invadere "go into, fall upon, attack, invade," from in- "in" + vadere "go, walk" (see vamoose). Invade is 1491, from invadere.[1] Hence to say that a "invasion was a walk-over" would be to say it twice :o) I propose the article be moved to Offensive (Military) for which there is no article despite the many more Offensives there have been in military history then 'invasions'. The Offensive also happens to be a major Principle of War, so its not just my invention.-- mrg3105mrg3105 07:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Foreign intervention in a civil war

Intervention by a foreign power in the civil war of another country, at the request of one of the sides, does not constitute an invasion does it? (e.g. US involvement in Vietnam or Cuban & South African intervention in the Angolan Civil War) Some folks, having read the definition here, are interpreting these interventions as "invasions", so some clarification might be necessary. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hungary

The section on Hungary's invasions seems to be a list of "raids". I cleaned it up a little (grammar, focus, etc.), but someone with knowledge of the subject might want to see if it's a legitimate section for this article. There have been a lot of edits from an editor pushing Hungarian importance in history, etc., and this might have been one of them. - Special-T (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Adal

I feel, that newly added part about Somali invasion to Ethiopia is notable only to Somalia and Ethiopia and have undue weight (WP:UNDUE) in the list. Other invasions listed were about many nations, are in Bible, or shake the world. For example EB have hundreds lines about Alexander the Great and his invasion of Persia or about Genghis Khan and his invasion of China. But about invasion of Adal to Ethiopie in EB is five lines ([1]) and according this article, armies were little ("Four hundred Portuguese musketeers landed at Mitsiwa (now Massawa, Eritrea) in 1541. Adal then took on reinforcements as well: 900 Arab, Turkish, and Albanian musketeers, plus some cannon." In same time, in 1547, was Battle of Mühlberg with armies 12,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry against 25,000 infantry and 4,500 cavalry, or other example Battle of Ceresole with ~11,000–13,000 infantry,~1,500–1,850 cavalry, against ~12,500–18,000 infantry,~800–1,000 cavalry,~20 guns. And these battles are interesting, but no one claims, that these battles are top ten of invasions or battles. OK, I understand, that "Thanks to that invasion tensions growed between Somali and Ethiopia, that are noticed today" but, in this article must be generally and worldwide known and significant. Invasion of Somalia to Ethiopia in 1540 is not.--Yopie (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That's probably one of the most eurocentric arguments I have ever read. The Britannica is not the end all or be all of what should be considered significant. The Conquest of Abyssinia affected all of the modern countries in the Horn of Africa, not just Ethiopia and Somalia and shook up the entire Medieval region bordering the Red Sea and Indian Ocean. It drew in several powerful empires such as the Portuguese and the Ottomans on either side because of the strategic location of the region on the most important medieval trade-routes. Abyssinia, then Sub-Saharan Africa's only Christian State was almost completely vanguished from the face of the earth. The armies most certainly weren't little or insignificant as you claim, the Ethiopian emperor according to medieval sources brought to the field an army of 200,000 men, while the Somali troops employed rifles and cannons, the first time on African soil and with Turkish help for the first time defeated a European army in Africa. The war allowed the Great Oromo migration to take place, one of the largest ethnic groups of Africa which completely changed the dynamics of that part of Africa permanently. The individual players involved are notable as well, the Portuguese commander Christavao Da Gama was the son of Vasco Da Gama, while the Adalite commander Ahmed Guray is celebrated by millions in the Horn of Africa, and has been invoked as a symbol of glory or fear during Africa's largest conventional wars of the modern era. I absolutely don't see how the Japanese invasion of Korea is relevant to Africa or South America, and I really don't see how the Norman invasion of England is relevant to Asia, Africa and other parts of the planet, who worlds' most certainly weren't "shaken" by those episodes. Sure they define those individual countries/regions history and culture, but the same can be said of Adal's invasion, which continues to have repercussions into our time, evendo it occured five centuries ago. I will therefore restore that important piece of info, about a significant invasion that has influenced millions of people. --Somaliweyn10 (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Any source, that say about this war, that is significant? Please add reliable and verifiable source. Bad feeling between Somali and Ethiopians is nothing uncommon, as every invasion ended with tensions between both parties. And have in mind, that this is English wikipedia. --Yopie (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I quote the Cambridge illustrated atlas, warfare: Renaissance to revolution, 1492-1792 By Jeremy Black pg 9

The Conflict in the Horn of Africa between Ethiopia and Ahmed Ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi of Adal (1506 - 1543), known to the Ethiopians as Ahmed Gran(the left-handed), was affected by support received from the sea from foreign powers. The war is indeed an instructive instance both of how such struggles could become aspects of a wider conflict and the transforming role of firearms. Ahmad, a fiery imam, conquered Adal in the mid-1520s and then launched a holy war against Ethiopia. He also trained his men in the new tactics and firearms introduced into the Red Sea by the Ottomans, who conquered Egypt in 1517. Ahmad overran much of Ethiopia in 1527 and, thanks to better leadership and weapons, higher morale, a more effective command structure, greater mobility and more flexible tactics, he was able to defeat the Ethiopian Emperor Lebna Dengel at the battle of Shimbra Kure in 1528. Ahmad then conquered much of Ethiopia, including the wealthy Amhara plateau, though Lebna continued to resist from the Christian Highlands. In 1541, the Portuguese dispatched 400 musketeers to the aid of Ethiopia. A joint Ethiopian and Portuguese army defeated Ahmad in 1541. He then turned to the Ottomans for help. They in turn provided him with 900 musketeers and 10 cannon, with which he defeated his opponents in August 1542, killing 200 Portuguese including their commander Christopher Da Gama. The conflict in Ethiopia, hitherto the land of Prester John to the Europeans had thus been intergrated, atleast partly, into global military relationships.

The above source comes from a respected institution and scholar, and pretty much seals the question of significance/notability. Secondly, this might be the English wikipedia, that however doesn't equal only historic events relevant to the United Kingdom should be included, that is a classic case of systematic bias. May I remind you that there are millions of Horn of Africans, Portuguese, Post-Ottoman nationalities living in English-speaking countries, be it in Africa, Europe or North America, that access this free-encyclopedia, not to forget the millions of world-history enthusiasts from those same English-speaking countries. --Somaliweyn10 (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note about image: Please, see WP:IUP, where is:"The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. ...Articles may get ugly and difficult to read if there are too many images crammed onto a page with relatively little text. " --Yopie (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Invasion is not properly Military invasion

This article should be re-created under the name of Military Invasion, since formally its wording is focused only on a type of invasion that is not generic. Thank you. --84.236.162.169 (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Difference between Invasion & Immigration

A section to differentiate this article from the article on immigration would be useful. 121.45.172.20 (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

"Military intervention" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Military intervention and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Military intervention until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gaetr (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Social science

Invasion 116.75.195.157 (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)