No. The United States declared independence and was a real sovereign country. However the British Empire did not recognize that independence so there was no country for them to declare war on. From their perspective they were putting down a rebellion in their own colony.
It had its own centralized internally undisputed government free from foreign influence, control over its contiguous territory and borders, and international recognition. What else would it be?
The only thing the US had at that point was some international recognition. How can you possibly be free from foreign influence and have control over your borders if you are in the middle of fighting and Empire that claims and asserts militarily that you are a colony?
I read a comment of yours not long ago saying that the only countries that recognise Palestine are countries that hate Jews or hate America. The only countries that recognised the US at that point were ones that were enemies of the British Empire.
The USA wasn't truly independent until the Treaty of Paris when Britain recognised them as such and borders were properly agreed. Up until then, you were merely a rebellious colony.
The centralized internally undisputed government was free from foreign influence. The king and parliament had no say in the goings on at the Continental Congress. And the government of the United States exerted full control over almost the entirety of the country, minus one or two cities under British occupation. Battles were fought here and there, but the British only controlled small parcels of land on the continent. This is not complicated.
It's true international recognition has a lot to do with politics. Of course it does. That's why it's the least important of these three factors. But it's still a factor. And the US checked off every one of these factors by 1777. "Palestine" checks off only the last one. It is not sovereign. Are you trying to argue that "Palestine" is currently a sovereign state and the United States before 1783 was not? Or are you saying both are not? The former argument would be pretty absurdist, albeit pretty typical.
and btw the first country to recognize American sovereignty was Morocco, and this had nothing at all to do with spite toward the British or racial animus toward English people. You're just pulling arguments out of thin air.
I think the statement "internally undisputed government" is a bit inaccurate, because there were quite many "loyalists" fighting the revolution/independence amongst the residents of the colonies.
Of course that is always the situation when new countries are detached from another country: there always people who do not support the independence. Sometimes it leads to a war, sometimes those people either move away or just adapt to the new situation, maybe biting the bullet, though.
Nomad: undisputed in this sense means that there were no other serious contenders or rivals claiming authority within the country that exerted any actual control. For example, and by contrast, it's often said that "Palestine" includes the territories of The West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but when other countries say they recognize Palestinian statehood, they also usually are recognizing the PNA/Fatah as the government of that state. However the PNA only controls pockets of the West Bank while much (most?) of it is still under direct Israeli control. Meanwhile Gaza is under the control of Hamas. To have had an analogous situation in the United States in the 1770s you'd have to have seen a situation where the Continental Congress controlled maybe parts of 4 or 5 states (but not Philadelphia, where they claimed their capital was), some other rival American group who also claimed sovereignty controlled most of Vermont and Massachusetts, and the British still controlled everything else.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_WarNeither state, however, officially declared war (both sides did declare the Islands areas a war zone and officially recognised that a state of war existed between them) and hostilities were almost exclusively limited to the territories under dispute and the area of the South Atlantic where they lie.
It looks like "declaring" war has gone out of fashion since 1942, then. The UK has been a willing belligerent in many wars since then - and not just the Falklands. Vietnam, Gulf Wars, Korea, Malaya, the Mau Mau uprisings in Kenya, Cyprus, Suez etc etc
Uk not in Vietnam War: .......... Countries involved in VIETNAM WAR:= United States, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, New Zealand, Thailand, Khmer Republic (later overthrown by Khmer Rouge), Kingdom of Laos and Republic of China (Taiwan).
Agreed, Jerry, declaring war has gone out of fashion. I guess though that the UK also thought it unnecessary to declare war back in the mid-19th century, when it reserved the right to be the biggest drug dealer in world history, twice fighting "Opium Wars" against the Chinese to protect their market against Chinese government restrictions.
In the Mau Mau uprisings in Kenya, the Communist Insurgency in Malaya and war against guerrillas in Cyprus, the British were not fighting against a whole country.
I was 17 in 1982, and remember the Falklands pretty clearly. It was stated repeatedly that this wasn't a 'war', it was a 'conflict'. Declaring war would have been more trouble than it's worth, because of the stance of the UN, and the USA.
Yes, UK was the most aggressive nation in history. Anyway, we should accept that the number of declaration of wars does not correlate with the number of aggressive wars. E.g. since WW1 Germany did exactly once declared war (on US) while half the world declared war on Germany.
It must be said that France, USA, Spain, Portugal, Germany, etc. have also been very aggressive in the past. As I have said before I don't think any nation is blameless.
Given the above, it's an interesting point that England (later UK) and Portugal have had an alliance since the late 14th century and have never opposed each other in a war since
not strictly true, Chip. Portuguese ships were a significant part of the Spanish Armada. It was during the time they 'shared' a monarch with Spain but they were still technically separate.
The American Revolution was my first thought, but when I went to type in a country's name, I realized there really wasn't one to put...it wasn't the United States yet, and "The 13 Colonies" or "The Colonies" doesn't count as an actual country. I guess technically being England's colonies, they were declaring war against themselves...ish, but that isn't correct either.
The U.S. was a sovereign state at that point because it had its own self-controlled government and had control of its borders. The U.K. didn't declare war on the sovereign state of the U.S. because they didn't think it existed and declaring war on it would be admitting it did.
Lol, so this is where the US got its whole "don't bother with formally declaring war" ideas from. Is this even 10% of the armed conflicts UK has been in?
There is a difference between "total war" and limited military operations or "police actions". Most of the wars since WWII have been limited operations.
UK has had many more wars without declaring war. On the other hand they never actually fought against Finland, but they declared war on us 1941. That was very nice thing to do at the time when Soviet Union tried to occupy Finland... We did not get much help from anyone. Thank God Germany helped. Sometimes what happens is that only man who helps you is the most evil man on the planet. Mostly Finns had to fight alone against mighty USSR. And the result: there was only three capitals in Europe (countries involved in war) that nobody was able to occupy: Moscow, London and Helsinki.
Britain supplied Finland during the Winter War, and had got to the final stages of preparing an expeditionary force when Finland sued for peace. Probably a good job for the rest of the world that it didn't happen.
Declarations of war have been obsolete since the end of World War 2 and creation of the United Nations. It simply doesn't happen anymore. Armed conflicts happen; but wars are not declared as there's not really any legal benefit for doing so anymore. The USA isn't some weird outlier. Since 1945 there have been fewer than 20 declared wars by one sovereign state against another by all countries in the entire world.
Ooh, even for Jetpunk that's nit-picking of a high order, as the official name was changed back to Siam in 1946, and in the interim virtually everyone in English-speaking countries continued to call it "Siam".
It seems to me that many countries have been involved in wars during the last few hundred years. E.G....... google 'Wars involving USA'....... and read the long long list.
Wiki: "Thailand in World War II officially adopted a position of neutrality until it was invaded by Japan in December 1941. At the start of the Pacific War, the Japanese Empire pressured the Thai government to allow the passage of Japanese troops to invade British-held Malaya and Burma. The Thai government under Plaek Phibunsongkhram (known simply as Phibun) considered it preferable to co-operate with the Japanese rather than fight them. Axis-aligned Thailand declared war on the United States and Britain and annexed territories in neighbouring countries, expanding to the north, south, and east, gaining a border with China near Kengtung."
Japan twisted their arm: “Let us run troops through your country...or be invaded”. So they declared war on the US, prompting the UK to declare war on Thailand.
What about the Anglo-Boer war? Great Britain did declare war on the two boer republics (Orange Free State and the South African Republic) in South Africa.
Yes, technically it still does not. British territories today are scattered on all continents all around the world, so that the Sun is always shining on at least one of these territories. Look it up!
I'm sure there's a reason why it doesn't count, but what about china haven't the British fought them a few times times? like when they took control of hong kong for 99 years
actually in most cases they do since most countries that do declear wars have some form of government which needs to give permission, so even if it is a bald face lie they usually give one.
The ukraine invasion for example is acording to putin a policng action to put down a facist government that is abusing its own people, its bull but that is the reason for it.
The United Kingdom didn't exist until 1801. From 1707 to 1801 it was the Kingdom of Great Britain following the ratification of the "Acts of Union" in 1707 which united the English and Scottish kingdoms. Only in 1801, following the ratification of the "Acts of Union 1800" did it become the United Kindom which united the English, Scottish and Irish kingdoms.
It would be more correct to change the title to "Kingdom of Great Britain and later The United Kingdom..."
Why does Turkey not count as the Ottoman Empire? They are the same country in almost everything but the name and you even say you don't count countries that no longer exist at the top but the Ottoman Empire by the logic of not counting Turkey should not exist anymore.
Some research shows that Britain declared war on Bhutan on November 12, 1864. The "Duar War" broke out because of border skirmishes stemming from Bhutanese discontent with losing a region called Koch Bihar a hundred years earlier. This was verified on Wikipedia and a scholarly article by Dorji Wangchuk called "Foundations of Bhutan History". The Wikipedia article used for this quiz states that the article is incomplete and you can help by expanding the list of countries that Britain declared war on. If anyone sees my post, feel free to update the Wikipedia article cited at the top of this quiz. As for this quiz, Bhutan does indeed belong on here. The amount of research I did to verify this is definitely not expected of you, though, Quizmaster. :D
I see the Falklands, Suez and the Mau Mau rebellion mentioned above. But I don't understand why the Boer War is not mentioned here. It is even referred to as the Anglo-Boer War and according to Wikipedia was fought between the British Empire and two Boer states, the South African Republic ( or Republic of Transvaal) and the Orange Free State.
Did Britain actually declare war, though? I know that the Boers declared war, but did the British reciprocate? The quiz differentiates between fighting a war and DECLARING a war.
By no stretch of the imagine was America under Trump worst than imperialist Britain, which looted, oppressed, and starved millions of people across globe. But even then, imperialist Britain was better than Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR or Khan's Mongolia. In comparison, what crimes against humanity did Trump commit?
I don't want this post to be read as me hating Britain or defending Trump--on the contrary, I'd consider myself an Anglophile and I voted against Trump. The point I'm trying to make is that every country has a dark past. That doesn't mean that the country in question sucks. The average British person today has no connection to the crimes of the Empire, and neither are today's Americans responsible for slavery, Native genocide, Japanese internment, etc. So can we please stop using history as an excuse to advance our own agendas and instead acknowledge that all of humanity has done some terrible things?
The US didn't become worse than some of the worst countries in history, but Trump himself was worse than some of the worst leaders in history. But his badness also included laziness, ignorance, and incompetence; so thankfully the damage he could have done was relatively contained. (not that it wasn't still severe, and very often understated, and still ongoing)
WWII apart (I think most people would agree that the UK was on the right side of that one), the list isn't much different to everyone else around at the time. WWI was essentially a massive mistake on all sides and the rest were mostly just standard European diplomacy - or were the French, Spanish, Russians, etc blameless?
don't pay attention to canadry he's a shameless propagandist with an obvious agenda who once said, in earnestness, that a list that included Pol Pot's Cambodia, Kim Jong Il's North Korea, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, Ulbricht's East Germany, and the Derg's Ethiopia were the "coolest countries ever."
This is an interesting quiz, and one from which I have learned something. I did not know that the UK declared war on Thailand, but now I do. Thanks Quizzer6794. I also note that there is no mention of the USA in the quiz, and yet (some might say therefore) it has to dominate the comments section.
I read a comment of yours not long ago saying that the only countries that recognise Palestine are countries that hate Jews or hate America. The only countries that recognised the US at that point were ones that were enemies of the British Empire.
The USA wasn't truly independent until the Treaty of Paris when Britain recognised them as such and borders were properly agreed. Up until then, you were merely a rebellious colony.
It's true international recognition has a lot to do with politics. Of course it does. That's why it's the least important of these three factors. But it's still a factor. And the US checked off every one of these factors by 1777. "Palestine" checks off only the last one. It is not sovereign. Are you trying to argue that "Palestine" is currently a sovereign state and the United States before 1783 was not? Or are you saying both are not? The former argument would be pretty absurdist, albeit pretty typical.
Of course that is always the situation when new countries are detached from another country: there always people who do not support the independence. Sometimes it leads to a war, sometimes those people either move away or just adapt to the new situation, maybe biting the bullet, though.
May we have "Siam" as a type-in please?
:(
Wiki: "Thailand in World War II officially adopted a position of neutrality until it was invaded by Japan in December 1941. At the start of the Pacific War, the Japanese Empire pressured the Thai government to allow the passage of Japanese troops to invade British-held Malaya and Burma. The Thai government under Plaek Phibunsongkhram (known simply as Phibun) considered it preferable to co-operate with the Japanese rather than fight them. Axis-aligned Thailand declared war on the United States and Britain and annexed territories in neighbouring countries, expanding to the north, south, and east, gaining a border with China near Kengtung."
Argentina 1978
Italy 1982
Argentina 1986 ("Hand of God" goal by Maradona)
The ukraine invasion for example is acording to putin a policng action to put down a facist government that is abusing its own people, its bull but that is the reason for it.
I put that and didn't complete the quiz.
It would be more correct to change the title to "Kingdom of Great Britain and later The United Kingdom..."
I don't want this post to be read as me hating Britain or defending Trump--on the contrary, I'd consider myself an Anglophile and I voted against Trump. The point I'm trying to make is that every country has a dark past. That doesn't mean that the country in question sucks. The average British person today has no connection to the crimes of the Empire, and neither are today's Americans responsible for slavery, Native genocide, Japanese internment, etc. So can we please stop using history as an excuse to advance our own agendas and instead acknowledge that all of humanity has done some terrible things?