Talk:List of wars involving the United Kingdom

Suez 1956 inconclusive?

It is just simply inaccurate to categorize the outcome of this conflict as "inconclusive". Suez is the end of Britain as a Great Power. Within a decade the entire empire in Africa and Southeast Asia is no more. It is a political and strategic defeat of the first order. It illustrates how a tactical victory on the battlefield means nothing in the face of strategic defeat. Some sources: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-was-the-suez-crisis-so-important https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-was-the-suez-crisis-so-important https://www.jstor.org/stable/23352191

Cyprus Emergency

I note the emergency has been classed as a British "Defeat" however; the aim of EOKA was enosis, they never had a military victory - nor was enosis achieved. A political settlement was the outcome of the conflict. I'm not sure "defeat" is correct, given the Suez crisis is also not classed as a defeat. Mlutter1 (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur that "Defeat" isn't appropriate. Feel free to update. dashiellx (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually EOKAs goal was for the Cyprus problem to be taken seriously by the UN with the hopes of eventual enosis. Speaking on the military side, I mean, from controlling 100% of the island (And by control I mean by military means), that was then reduced to about 3-4% if im not mistaken, the same as is today also bearing in mind the British government was also clear during the campaign that they didnt inted to give Cyprus full independence + the raids/ hit and runs on British military installations which were mostly successful and if were talking pure number crunch, EOKA fatalities are in the area of around 105 whereas British are thought to be around 370 Alphavitario (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe this accurately reflects the war. There was no military defeat regarding the UK, as what comprises the definition of a defeat on this page. There was a political settlement where the UK still retained partial sovereignty of the islands in agreement for the end of conflict. The UK was not forced into submission and it's position was never threatened at any point. Hence why "Defeat" isn't accurate. I believe "other" is the best definition for this conflict. Greece withdrew support for the EOKA during the zurich agreement. EOKA could not continue its campaign. [1]https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:9fcd14f8-f60d-49b3-82b4-411e3370e890/download_file?file_format=application%2Fpdf&safe_filename=Thesis%2BRevised.pdf&type_of_work=Thesis

The success of inflicting more causalities doesn't lead to a military victory, and their aim of enosis was not successful. Hence my reasoning for 'Other' as neither side can claim victory. I think using the Suez example below makes this reasonable. Mlutter1 (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean losing most engagements and losing most control of the island if not constituting defeat I dont know what does. EOKAs first political objective (UN intervention), was achieved, Grivas himself said at the start that this would not be conventional as conventionally it couldnt militarily be done. Alphavitario (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

References

The Cod Wars were not wars, and including them here is misleading

The Cod Wars were a series of fishing disputes. Yes, Navy vessels got involved, and ships did ram each other, and it has been described as militarised, but it quite simply wasn't a war.

Wikipedia's own article for the Cod Wars states explicitly they were not actually wars. As far as I can tell, the only reason they are included here is because they are commonly called "wars", but by that logic, the "war on drugs" should be included. The "Emu War" should be included on Australia's list (another "war" that is a popular subject of internet memes and jokes). We should then also include any trade wars, as well as the war on want, cancer, poverty, etc.

I'm being facetious, but the fact is the Cod Wars do not belong. Hell, there have actually been a number of fishing disputes between the UK and France, (1993 Cherbourg Incident, English Channel scallop fishing dispute, 2021 Jersey Dispute) two of which involved the Royal Navy, that are of course, not on this list. The other, the English Channel scallop fishing dispute, involved the French Navy (as a mediator) and has even been referred to as the "Scallop War".

Another argument I've seen for keeping them is that they're very historically important, which I don't dispute. However, if we include the cod wars solely on the grounds that "they're called wars, and they were actually quite important", why shouldn't we include the British Invasion? Its widely referred to as an invasion, and it was certainly one of the most significant cultural events of that decade. It doesn't matter how important the event was, if its not actually a war, it doesn't belong on this list.

I don't want to just remove them because I'm aware of talk pages about the subject that already exist; since the last discussion about this was three years ago I don't think it's inappropriate to try again. Battle1368 (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The lede reads that "Notable militarised interstate disputes are included" (category where the cod wars belong to according to sources) and the list is plenty of "no wars" (proxy conflicts, colonial scuffles and minor incidents). Darius (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I would be interested to know which colonial scuffles or minor incidents on this list that you have in mind? I couldn't find a single one that didn't involve actual fighting (with lethal intent, which the Cod Wars did not involve).

In any case, as far as I can tell, that lede was added specifically to allow for the inclusion of the Cod Wars. I went through 50+ "List of Wars Involving X" articles and the only one I could find that mentioned militarised interstate disputes in the lede was List of wars involving Australia. Even in that article, I don't think any of the wars listed are interstate disputes.

Including "Militarised Interstate Disputes" is simply not appropriate. On the article for MIDs I found a list of such incidents between liberal countries (Ctrl-F for "MIDS between Liberal Countries"). There are twenty such incidents listed involving the UK, only two of which are included on this list: confrontations during the Cod Wars. I was unable to figure out the specific incident many of the entries referred to, because so many of them were incredibly minor. Besides the Cod Wars and incidents which took place during the World Wars, I could find wikipedia articles for only three of the listed incidents: the Oregon Boundary Dispute, the Fashoda Incident, and the Red Crusader incident. Eagle-eyed readers might notice that none of these are listed in this article, nor should they be.

The Cod Wars is no different to any of these incidents: the only military nature of the dispute was as a show of force. The dispute was solved entirely through political pressure (e.g. Iceland leveraging its position in NATO), and there was never a real risk of the war "going hot". Should the article for wars involving the United States include freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea? Again, should this article include fishing disputes between Britain and France? It just doesn't make any sense to include military shows of strength that weren't actual conflicts.

I think its wrong to include the Cod Wars, and by extension I think its wrong to include MIDs that did not involve lethal combat in some form. The criteria for inclusion in this list shouldn't be overly rigid, but I think its blatantly clear that the Cod Wars stands out in articles like this. I wouldn't actually be opposed to the inclusion of some MIDs that involved significant armed conflict and casualties in practice: for example, the Iraqi no-fly zones conflict is referred to as a MID on the page for MIDs (but as a low level conflict on its own article, which is telling). Either way, keeping the Cod Wars in would be silly and I continue to advocate for its removal. Battle1368 (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Dozen of rammings, dozens of RN frigates damaged, the whole Icelandic Coast Guard mobilised and all of her naval assets taking some degree of damage, at least one dead, several wounded, and a huge loss of income and natural resources to the UK economy are enough to classify the Cod Wars as a protracted militarised conflict worth of inclusion in this list. The use of force by the Icelandic Coast Guard made the British trawlers' work in Icelandic waters unatenable. It's true that there were mayor restraints to the use of force, but these were the same restraints as in any limited conflict (use of air power only in recce role in the 1919 Anglo-Irish War, no large US ground operations within the boundaries of North Vietnam, veto to the bombing of Argentine air bases in Patagonia during the Falklands War, etc.) Converserly, the ramming of a coastal gunboat by a large frigate could certainly produce large casualties, specially in the case of capsize, so your mention of "lethal combat" as a precondition is immaterial. The Cod Wars also involved some captures at sea and the sporadic use of live rounds, which are potentially lethal. The dispute was so extended that we can't characterise them as mere, isolated "incidents".

I insist that this page lists as "wars" minor incidents such as the Battle of Tysami, the Bombardment of Kagoshima, the 1922 Burao tax War or the Corfu Channel Incident, proxy wars (take a look to all those entries reading "British allied x", such as the Klang War, the Kuwait–Najd War and the Sierra Leona Civil War) or pure political interventions ("Pastry War"), therefore I find no reason to question the inclusion of a militarised dispute whose outcome was the loss of an extense fisheries zone and a huge economic blow to the fishing industry in Britain. Darius (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll preface this by saying that I'm essentially conceding the point, so bear with me.

As far as the Anglo-Irish, Vietnam, and Falkland Wars go, I do think these are somewhat different since although there were limits to the conflict, "real" fighting did still take place. However, I appreciate that defining "real" is difficult, and that the criterion of involving "lethal combat" is imperfect. I still think that applying "I know it when I see it" tells us something is off about including the Cod Wars here, but you're right that there fundamentally was a campaign that involved some physical, if not technically military force.

As for your examples of minor incidents and proxy wars, I think we both agree that inclusion on this page does not mean that there has to be a declared war between the UK and another belligerent, so no issues on that front (except that I would object to including the Pastry War here, at least judging by a cursory glance at it's Wikipedia article. It seems to me that it was a war in which actual British involvement was limited to negotiating a peace treaty, at which point many lists of wars, for example Switzerland's, are gonna have to get a bit longer. Brokering a peace treaty shouldn't be seen as "involvement" in a war, but I digress. I could be wrong about the scale of British involvement in that war anyway).

The Cod Wars were protracted conflicts of sorts, but not military. Including it sticks out, although I appreciate that it was a significant and ongoing campaign involving (very) limited military force. It's very difficult to make direct comparisons to other incidents, since I can't at this time think of other "less than lethal" conflicts (Perhaps border clashes on the Indian-Chinese border? I know for a time the soldiers there carried no arms to avoid escalation). In any case, I still think that this does not fit on the article as it is, but I'm beginning to sympathise with your position that it fundamentally was a protracted campaign that involved physical, if only potentially lethal force.

Perhaps there ought to be some sort of highlighting to draw attention to the fact that it's sketchy as to whether this meets the definition of armed conflict? I still personally think it's so different that exclusion wouldn't be unreasonable, but on reflection it still needs to be classed as something, and I think it would be sensible to go here provided it was clear it was hugely different in nature to most everything else on this list. I think a highlight of sorts is especially important given the name of the conflict, because I do think it's misleading to include it without qualification (yes, there is a note present already, but it's not particularly front and centre). It might also help to stop idiots like me cropping up in the talk pages every few years :)

Either way, I'm sorry for running in guns blazing; I shouldn't have been so righteous about this. The title of this talk thread is fairly provocative, in hindsight. Battle1368 (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

1952 coup in Egypt

Has the person who wrote this even checked the Wikipedia article?

Egyptian free officers overthrew the king AND Britain in 1952, not that the free officers and Britain won against the muslim brotherhood! What is this? This is a joke! 217.45.97.172 (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)