Didn't they end up leaving the Soviet Union before Kazakhstan though, leaving Kazakhstan as the entire USSR for a short period of time? I know this doesn't change that, but it is a fun fact!
I'll offer the Maldives for this list. While it was a protectorate of the UK from 1887 until 1965, no Brits resided anywhere in the country for most of that time, Maldivian government was undisturbed, and Britain even had to negotiate the use of the southern island of Gan as an airbase during World War II (a lease that was subsequently renewed and ultimately revoked by the Maldivian government using negotiations that were basically the same before and after the end of the protectorate). This certainly doesn't represent a "conquering." The only time in the last 2,000-2,500 years that the Maldives hasn't had local rulers was during a period of Portuguese control between 1558 and 1573. This isn't a complaint - it must be pretty hard to come up with a list that makes sense for this.
In January 1914, British, German and US military forces entered Haiti, ostensibly to protect their citizens from civil unrest at the time.[75] In an expression of the Theodore Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, the United States occupied the island in 1915. U.S. Marines were stationed in the country until 1934, a period of nineteen years.
Can I just say how much I disagree with not including China? They were never fully controlled by foreign powers after 1850, and Manchuria is now an integral part of China. Although not ethnically Han, there are many non-Han minorities inside China, and have been for centuries. It is hard to see the Manchu Qing as an alien group when those same people are still part of China, even if they are a different ethnicity.
"Name the countries that have not been controlled by a foreign power since 1850"
What is the criteria?
Portugal was not controlled by French Empire during Napoleon invasions. French invaded Portugal and there were many battles, but they never had political control. In fact officially they never took control of the main cities Lisbon or Porto, despite of the atempts. The French killed many people, sacked lots of precious objects, food, etc, but they NEVER had control of the territory.
Likewise the Swedish conquered Moscow in 1610 but you are not counting it and that;s correct because Russia did not lose sovereignty, even though they had another country invading the territory. And like that it happened to other countries in this list...countries that were invaded, there were battles without losing sovereignty. Last time Portugal was officially ruled by other country was in 1640, at that time Spain ruled Portugal.
Thailand has never been conquered by any foreign power. Thailand's close relationship with British, Dutch, French, Spanish and Japanese made them the only unconquered country in Southeast Asia.
They were never conquered or colonized by a Western power, but I believe the Burmese controlled them for some period in the late 1800s, even though they mostly fought off Burmese invasions. Maybe someone can clarify.
I mean, the Latin American nations emancipation from Europe (basically: Spain, Portugal and France) came on the heels of the US independence, the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. Australia was still a British Dominion during WWI, almost a century later.
Bhutan is kinda weird: The 1949 treaty with India lets India "guide" the Bhutanese foreign policy; however, it also calls for non-interference in each other's internal affairs. So calling Bhutan a "puppet state" of India would be mostly wrong.
so, we're not counting all foreign invasions, such as when the U.S. overthrew democratically elected leader of Guatemala Arbenz in 1954? sure, the U.S. didn't technically seize control of the nation, but instituted it's own chosen "leadership." just like they've done in countless countries around the world... but i guess that doesn't count.
It's not true, in my opinion. I'd say Canada became truly independent only in 1931. Or even arguably in 1982, since the UK's consent was needed to modify the Canadian constitution prior to that date.
Being carved up and having the majority of its territory divided between the victorious Allied powers sounds pretty conquered to me. Having treaty conditions forced on them and having their parliament dissolved by foreign powers seems pretty conquered. Armistic of Mudros
"The armistice was followed by the occupation of Constantinople (Istanbul) and the subsequent partitioning of the Ottoman Empire. The Treaty of Sèvres (10 August 1920), which was signed in the aftermath of World War I, imposed harsh terms on the Ottoman Empire, but it was never ratified by the Ottoman Parliament in Istanbul. The Ottoman Parliament was officially disbanded by the Allies on 11 April 1920 due to the overwhelming opposition of the Turkish MPs to the provisions discussed in Sèvres."
All things that happen to a country that has been neither conquered nor occupied.
Pretty certain Thailand belongs on here. Japan did invade it in 1941, but the war lasted 5 hours and Thailand was never conquered before it traded in neutrality to join the Axis. Before that it was never colonised by any European power and it hasn't been in war since then. I can't really see any reason to leave it off this list, though I'm assuming it's because of the events of 1941, though I don't think these constitute a conquest by any stretch of the imagination.
Also I'm not really sold on the Manchu justification for not including China - since 1850 Manchuria has continually been a part of China (and for centuries prior).* The Manchus weren't ethnically Han Chinese, but I'm not sure this is a quiz about the ethnic make up of the government and I think you're getting into pretty weird territory when you start saying a nation has been "conquered" because its leaders come from an ethnic minority.
*As far as I'm aware, Manchukuo never received formal international recognition
Japan made Thailand a puppet state and the quiz says "Not controlled by a foreign power." Manchukuo/Manchuria was also made a puppet state, for example, but the Japanese still conquered it.
ha, that's an interesting point. Most of the current territory of the USA was conquered post 1781, but by the USA. Same argument goes for Russia I guess.
He got the city (which was burnt by the Russians before that), but the Russian army was very much still there, so was the rest of vast territory (especially that Moscow wasn't even the capital), so you can't really say he conquered it.
You can argue that Poland did it, as we entered Moscow (the capital) and put our Tzar on the throne.
Strange idea for a quiz when you consider most of Europe was occupied by Nazi Germany, all of Africa except Liberia was colonised until the mid-20th century. All of Oceania was a battleground between the Allies (US Navy) and Japan. It leaves behind South America and the neutrals, plus USA, Russia, UK, Turkey and those countries that were not desirable. An odd and eclectic collection of nations yoked together in an unnatural grouping.
To add on to what others have been saying the UK should have a later date, Oman shouldn't be there (bc of the UK), Turkey obviously shouldn't be there (was not even a state until 1917 or sth) and Russia shouldn't be there (the Russian heartland was conquered by the Germans)
I would argue that China should make the list in that Manchu conquest happened before 1850. Modern British monarchy derives its legitimacy ultimately from the conquest Normandy dynasty, and should the same standards apply then the UK shall not be included either.
Oman was a british colony, Turkey had plenty of wars before the creation of the modern state, where nations took mainland turkish lands and I’m pretty sure we Germans were in St Petersburg, Volgograd and before Moscow. I guess not fully occupied yeah, well you sure have your definitions, so I guess it can be right too. But not easy for the masses if that’s what is “right”
All of those countries were protectorates of the UK even after 1850.
What is the criteria?
Portugal was not controlled by French Empire during Napoleon invasions. French invaded Portugal and there were many battles, but they never had political control. In fact officially they never took control of the main cities Lisbon or Porto, despite of the atempts. The French killed many people, sacked lots of precious objects, food, etc, but they NEVER had control of the territory.
Likewise the Swedish conquered Moscow in 1610 but you are not counting it and that;s correct because Russia did not lose sovereignty, even though they had another country invading the territory. And like that it happened to other countries in this list...countries that were invaded, there were battles without losing sovereignty. Last time Portugal was officially ruled by other country was in 1640, at that time Spain ruled Portugal.
(referring to Europeans here mostly)
I mean, the Latin American nations emancipation from Europe (basically: Spain, Portugal and France) came on the heels of the US independence, the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. Australia was still a British Dominion during WWI, almost a century later.
Anyway, good quiz!
All things that happen to a country that has been neither conquered nor occupied.
Also I'm not really sold on the Manchu justification for not including China - since 1850 Manchuria has continually been a part of China (and for centuries prior).* The Manchus weren't ethnically Han Chinese, but I'm not sure this is a quiz about the ethnic make up of the government and I think you're getting into pretty weird territory when you start saying a nation has been "conquered" because its leaders come from an ethnic minority.
*As far as I'm aware, Manchukuo never received formal international recognition
You can argue that Poland did it, as we entered Moscow (the capital) and put our Tzar on the throne.
They're Manchus and guess where Manchuria is? China!
So they're not a foreign power.
That would like disqualifiying the UK because the Stuarts (who were Scots) took over in the 17th century. Which I see you haven't done.