The British invaded Iceland in WW2. They had no intention of being permanently there but felt it was in their best interest to hold the country during hostilities. They were officially not welcomed but they did not fight the landing forces. The British told the US to occupy whatever territories in the Caribbean they deemed necessary to protect the Americas.
So when Britain invades Iceland for strategic reasons it's not hostile, but when the USSR invades Poland and Finland for the same reason it's hostile. Ok buddy
For what reason were the invasions of Poland and Finland strategic?
Soviet Union wasn't at war with Germany yet, and in both instances they had planned to install or did install puppet governments in said countries.
Also total causalities from the invaded countries totalled over 300,000 compared to the 0 casualties suffered by Iceland.
UK paid compensation to any damage they caused during the occupation, didn't interfere in internal affairs, and promised and subsequently left Iceland after the war concluded. In contrast, Finland was made to pay war reparations, and even to today, Russia still controls territory that was ceded to them following the Winter War.
Iceland is currently a sovereign nation while Poland's eastern border still follows the same line that marked the division between the German and Soviet portions of the country when they invaded together. It's hard to argue that an invasion was purely strategic when you straight up kept all the land you invaded.
Yeah, these were the sorts of "invasions", I thought of too; the one that first popped into my head was Gulf War I – 30-some-odd countries "invading" Kuwait, but only to kick an invader out. But I confess that upon first reading, I did the same double-take as mckinpo! This is clearly why Quizmaster gets paid the big bucks :-)
agree... Armenia for sure was invaded by the soviet union in 1921, called the red army invasion of Armenia. maybe it wasn't included though since Quizzer only seems to include invasions after the official foundation of the USSR in Dezember 1922. imho it should still be included to be historically accurate.
The "invasion of Hungary, Austria, Germany, and Bulgaria" are not factual statements. The Soviets never invaded these countries, rather they were the target of theirs in 1941. The Soviet entry into these countries in 1944/45 were the result of the declaration of war by Nazi Germany and her co-belligerents, and was the continuation of these hostilities.
Germany was at war with the USSR when they invaded and occupied (the fact that Germany invaded the USSR first notwithstanding), and the Germans were not at all happy about it (even the ones who hated the nazis and wanted the war to end would rather haven been invaded by the western allies). When the USA invaded France, they were not at war with France, and I think the French were very happy about it.
The Slovak Republic was a Nazi puppet state from 1939 to 1945. The Soviets abolished the state on April 4, 1945. Hence it would be accurate to include Slovak Republic as invaded with hostile intent by the Soviets.
There was a joint British-Soviet occupation of Persia in 1941 with the Soviets taking the northern half. In reality both the Brits and the Soviets were interfering in Persia's domestic affairs and occupying oil fields during the interwar period.
The Shah at the time of the invasion was seen as friendly to Nazi Germany and the Allies couldn't afford to lose the country to the Axis. It was a preemptive move to secure strategic Allied control over the area. Afterward the Shah was forced to abdicate in favor of his son, who would go on to be the Shah famously chased out of the country some 38 years later, in part for his friendly stance toward foreign Westerners.
What about the USA? Never forget, in 1984 the Soviets and their Cuban allies occupied Calumet, Colorado. Brothers Jed and Matt Eckert and their plucky gang of high school guerrilla soldiers, The Wolverines, fought back against the occupying forces.
Not really. Invasions of Bulgaria, Iran, Romania, Hungary, Austria, Germany and Japan were all part of the WW2 counter-offensive against the Axis powers after Germany attacked the USSR, and they weren't annexed to the Soviet Union after the fighting was done even though friendly governments were often set up afterward. The later invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia were to crush local political dissidents against Communist and pro-Soviet rule; they also withdrew. And the occupation of Afghanistan to assist the Communist government there, though lengthy, ultimately ended in Soviet withdraw from the country. Really the only invasions here that could accurately be described as "conquests" are the Baltic states which were absorbed into the USSR in 1940.
In 1945 the United States occupied West Germany and Japan. Within 15 years those countries had reached levels of prosperity and population that were far higher than ever before.
In 1945 the Soviet Union occupied Eastern Europe. The situation was so brutal and depressing that they had to kill people who tried to flee to the west.
A simple list of countries invaded is a shallow and ultimately pointless method of comparing the effects of two countries on the world stage.
Again QM, the ALLIES occupied West Germany. As it happens the British in particular played a key role in the establishment of West German democracy, its social/economic recovery and its integration into the Western alliances.
Why do you cherry-pick West Germany and Japan, countries which were already rich and developed due to imperialism? What about Iraq? Libya? Afghanistan? It is ridiculous to imply that American invasion/occupation consistently results in "levels of prosperity and population that were far higher than ever before".
Afghan HDI increased every single year after the US-led invasion, but it was starting out at a pretty big deficit so might be hard to appreciate how far they came. Vietnam chased the Americans out and was taken over by Communists, so, not really a valid comparison; though actually today, many decades after the US pulled out and years since more-or-less fully embracing Capitalism, the country has actually started to thrive and the pace of growth is pretty impressive. Iraq.. was kind of a $#!tshow, granted.
tcook: when do you mistakenly believe the US invaded Libya? Are you talking about the Barbary Wars and despairing at the unlawful infringement of the rights of these people to engage in coastal piracy? Or do you mean the NATO action of 2011 in which no invasion took place and that stopped an insane tinpot Colonel's tank columns en route to butcher his perceived enemies in Benghazi? I guess you're in favor of the right of unpopular and unbalanced dictators to slaughter their own people en masse? Americans never stepped foot in Libya after that what happened then was on them. Being against the NATO action just makes you pro-butchering. If Donald Trump or some other would-be-king tries to assume absolute power in the US after losing popular support in 2024 or beyond, and he sends an armored division to wipe out his political enemies in New York or wherever, for the record, please send NATO to wipe out the tanks. I'll probably be one of the protestors. Thanks.
In the early October 1944 three Bulgarian armies, consisting of around 340,000-man,[69] together with the Red Army reentered occupied Yugoslavia and moved from Sofia to Niš, Skopje and Pristina to blocking the German forces withdrawing from Greece.[70][71] The Red Army organised the Belgrade Offensive, and took the city on 20 October.
I think it is meant to be "Only countries that were sovereign at the time. so Austria doesn't count," this of course referencing Anschluss and the fact that Austria was not independent at the time of the Soviet invasion.
I think that Denmark maybe belongs to the list? The soviets invaded the island of Bornholm a few days after Denmark was officially liberated from German occupation. The tricky thing is that Bornholm itself was still occupied by the Germans at the time that had orders to only surrender to the British, so in some sense it was unwillingly liberated by the Soviets. History is complicated
Damn, yeah. Literally the day Russia started its invasion. And now that I think about it, it's probably on purpose. No better day for Putin to start his resurrection of the Soviet Union than on a day that glorifies the Soviet Union.
It is incredibly inaccurate to say Putin is trying to bring back the USSR. The pre1917 Russian Empire? Yes. The USSR? No, as USSR's beliefs run quite contrary to Putin's (except in the level of control over the general populace shared by almost every Russian state throughout history). The USSR was quite accepting of the many ethnic groups that called it home, far more so than the US at the time, never invading because they felt a group of people did not deserve self-determination as Putin is doing now. Also (this should be a blatantly obvious reason) the USSR was a communist state, and Putin is about as far from a communist as you can get.
Yeah, but the US is no different claiming to be a country of freedom while not letting 20% of its population vote and launching proxy wars worldwide to install totalitarian dictatorships.
1956 in hungary was not an invasion, it was military support for the crushing of protests by the hungarian government. I don't think it counts as an invasion if the local government approved of it.
Soviet Union wasn't at war with Germany yet, and in both instances they had planned to install or did install puppet governments in said countries.
Also total causalities from the invaded countries totalled over 300,000 compared to the 0 casualties suffered by Iceland.
UK paid compensation to any damage they caused during the occupation, didn't interfere in internal affairs, and promised and subsequently left Iceland after the war concluded. In contrast, Finland was made to pay war reparations, and even to today, Russia still controls territory that was ceded to them following the Winter War.
In 1945 the Soviet Union occupied Eastern Europe. The situation was so brutal and depressing that they had to kill people who tried to flee to the west.
A simple list of countries invaded is a shallow and ultimately pointless method of comparing the effects of two countries on the world stage.
The red army occupied the capital and other territories in 1945 and they left only in 1955. Austria is neutral since than, not NATO member.
There are books about that:
https://www.amazon.com/Red-Army-Austria-Occupation-1945-1955/dp/1793626588
Yugoslavia is more questionable, but still:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_in_Yugoslavia#Liberation_of_Belgrade_and_eastern_Yugoslavia:
In the early October 1944 three Bulgarian armies, consisting of around 340,000-man,[69] together with the Red Army reentered occupied Yugoslavia and moved from Sofia to Niš, Skopje and Pristina to blocking the German forces withdrawing from Greece.[70][71] The Red Army organised the Belgrade Offensive, and took the city on 20 October.
Can someone explain the final caveat for me pls:
Only countries that were not sovereign at the time, so Austria doesn't count
Hulkamania running wild, am I right?
I think Bornholm should count as the Soviets continued occupying it until mid-1946 so it can't really be called a liberation.